Order ed,
	That there be laid before this House, Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2008-09 showing:—
	(1) a balance sheet;
	(2) a cashflow statement; and
	(3) notes to the account; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. (In continuation of House of Commons Paper No. 879 of 2007-08.)— ( M ark Tami. )

The Secretary of State was asked—

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the good news for my constituents in Cardiff, North? Quotient Bioresearch is to take over the business of GE Healthcare, thus saving 75 highly skilled jobs, many of them belonging to my constituents in Whitchurch. In addition, the company is to invest up to £15 million in a new facility in Cardiff. Is that not a vote of confidence in manufacturing in Cardiff and the rest of Wales?

Wayne David: Indeed it is. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the hard work that she has done on that and other issues in her constituency. I am aware of the announcement and I welcome the fact that £15 million is to be invested and 75 posts are to be saved. That shows that we are wholeheartedly committed to helping people and businesses in Wales through the economic downturn, and that we always put the Welsh economy on the road to recovery—unlike the last Conservative Government, who let tens of thousands of young people become a generation of lost workers. We are being proactive in helping the economy to get through these difficult times, and that is the truth.

Cheryl Gillan: Last month, when I asked the Secretary of State why France, Germany and even Italy had delivered on their automotive assistance programmes while our £2.3 billion scheme, which was announced back in January, had not paid out a penny, he said:
	"The money is coming through"—[ Official Report, 10 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 777.]
	In a written answer to me last week, a Business Minister confirmed that still not a penny in loans or loan guarantees had yet been given to support the industry. Is a grand announcement followed by seven months of inaction this Government's idea of being proactive and providing real help now?

Wayne David: Let us be clear about the effectiveness of the measures being taken. The car scrappage scheme is being very effective; it is having an effect on the automotive sector and a positive impact as far as British Steel and Corus are concerned. It is extremely useful. We also need to recognise that we have— [Interruption.]

Wayne David: The reason the Opposition are wittering away, as you so correctly put it, Mr. Speaker, is that they do not like the answers. The answers show clearly what the Government are doing effectively in intervening in the Welsh economy. We have mentioned the car scrappage scheme; let us also not forget that the future jobs fund will create 150,000 jobs across the United Kingdom as a whole—about 7,500 in Wales—with an investment of about £50 billion. That is effective. There is also the ProAct scheme, from which 63 companies and nearly 4,000 workers benefit, and the ReAct scheme. All those measures contribute materially to improving the lot of the people of Wales and improving the Welsh economy.

Albert Owen: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and for his efforts, as well as those of UK Government Departments and the First Minister on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government. Does he agree that although these are very difficult times, the parent companies of Anglesey Aluminium in my constituency, Rio Tinto and Kaiser Aluminium have a moral and social obligation to accept the generous offer that the Government have made—nearly £50 million—to assist them through this difficult period so that they can continue to commit to the work force and the local economy for the next 30 years, as they have indicated?

Peter Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have put nearly £50 million on the table as a result of cross-Government collaboration, including with the Welsh Assembly Government, and that should be taken up by Rio Tinto and Anglesey Aluminium. Many businesses would give their right arm for that kind of support. Anglesey Aluminium and its parent companies have benefited from decades of loyal work on the island, and I hope that these companies will think again. Meanwhile, we are exploring all options to try to secure employment in that factory.

Roger Williams: No one will underestimate the importance of aluminium smelting to the island of Anglesey, but other smaller companies throughout Wales, such as Kaye in Presteigne in my constituency, which is involved in aluminium casting producing components for the automotive industry, have been badly affected by the recession. The scrappage scheme introduced on the continent has been very successful, and Kaye has benefited from that because it exports most of its production. However, the scrappage scheme in this country has not been so successful, and it is due to end in March 2010. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Treasury and to his colleagues in Cabinet to ensure that the scrappage scheme is extended and enhanced to increase car sales throughout the UK and to allow companies such as Kaye too see a way through the recession?

Peter Hain: I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the success of the pilot to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which I established as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland between 2006 and 2008 and which had spectacular results. As a result of doctors being able to prescribe complementary health care free on the NHS, some two thirds of participating doctors agreed that their patients' health had improved. About half the patients took fewer painkillers, half took less conventional medication, including prescriptions, and two thirds had less time off work. This is therefore a win-win situation. I hope that the pilot will be extended to England, to Wales, back into Northern Ireland—because the new Government there have not extended it—and to Scotland.

Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that there is a strong relationship—as strong as ever—concerning orthopaedic surgery, especially with Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in Oswestry? I have to declare an interest, as does the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), because about 12 years ago we were patients there. It is important for patients in north Wales and mid-Wales to be happy in their minds that the relationship will continue.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right that the future jobs fund is extremely important to the UK, and especially Wales. There are more than 200 bids nationally, and we will examine the Welsh bids closely in the very near future.
	My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion with regard to young people, because it is extremely important that we do everything possible to ensure that young people benefit from as many Government schemes as possible. There is a clear contrast between the commitment that we have given to young people and what happened under the previous Administration. Young people were forgotten about and a generation was literally ignored.
	Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned that flood prevention schemes are important. I know that that certainly is the case in her constituency because of the River Loughor. Her suggestion would be a good example of using the future jobs fund for the needs of young people and the particular needs of her constituency.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that employment and training will be badly affected in Abergavenny as the result of the closure of Hill college? Will he speak to the Welsh Assembly Government about reinstituting the money that they have slashed from Coleg Gwent's budget, which has brought that about?

Nick Ainger: The Minister will know that work has already started on the 1 billion, 2,000 MW gas-fired power station at Pembroke, in my constituency, and that there will be up to 2,000 construction jobs. A local firm, Dawnus, has already won a contract and is employing local labour. Will he join me in encouraging other Welsh and UK contracting companies to bid for work on the power station, so that we maximise the number of local jobs and UK jobs for UK workers?

Wayne David: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that. The fact that a new power station is being built in his constituency is a massive vote of confidence in the local economy. Indeed, that very point was made in  The Economist only a few weeks ago. On his specific point about employment, there is a marvellous opportunity for the work force of the area and the region. We in the Wales Office are certainly doing our utmost to ensure that local people derive the greatest possible benefit from that investment. To highlight that fact, I know full well that my hon. Friend had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday to discuss the matter. He can be assured that we are fully behind him on it.

Cheryl Gillan: The defence training project at St. Athan would bring huge opportunities to Wales. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State is co-ordinating with the Ministry of Defence and that the pre-contract agreement letter will be issued to the preferred bidder this week, on time on 17 Julyor will the Government delay that?

Jennifer Willott: South Wales police is facing possibly the worst financial crisis in any force, due to systematic underfunding under the police funding formula and the lack of extra funding for capital city policing. It is already closing four police stations in central Cardiff and now the new head of the Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that police officer cuts are likely. Will the Minister make urgent representations to his Home Office colleagues to ensure that South Wales police finally receives extra funding for policing the Welsh capital city?

Wayne David: It is important to put the hon. Lady's question in context and recognise that the number of police officers in Wales has increased by almost 1,000 in the past few yearsa significant improvement. Throughout the length and breadth of Wales, including south Wales, people will testify to the fact that they want more proactive local and neighbourhood policing and that it is being delivered. I recognise the hon. Lady's points about the situation in south Wales, but let us also be clear that her Liberal party colleagues on the local authority in Cardiff have been reluctant to make the necessary increase in precept, which would allow proper funding. I am meeting the chief constable of South Wales in the near future to discuss her concerns and I am sure that she will mention the need to discuss the possibility of designating Cardiff as a capital city.

Peter Hain: As a result of the Government's efforts, European structural funds have made a huge contribution throughout Wales, with some 1.54 billion awarded in the last spending round generating more than 3.8 billion in investments.

Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and for his brave decision in 1998 to include Denbighshire and Conwy in the objective 1 bid for Wales. We were left out and my right hon. Friend included us. Over the course of objective 1 funding, we hope to draw down 500 million in those two counties alone. Why did the previous Conservative Government not draw down objective 1 funding, despite the closure of Shotton steelworks, and the decline of agriculture and traditional seaside tourism?  [ Interruption. ]

Peter Hain: Yes, I am very happy to. First, the Welsh Assembly Government have announced a 20 million package to support new apprenticeships. Secondly, we established the future jobs fund. Thirdly, we have guaranteed help for all young people aged 18 to 24 who have been claiming jobseeker's allowance for 12 months. That will provide opportunities for young people, who I agree are facing genuine problems at the present timea stark contrast with the 1990s and 1980s, when a whole generation of youngsters was thrown on to the scrap heap by the hon. Gentleman's Tory Government.

Wayne David: Wales has a [ Interruption. ]

Hywel Francis: I thank the Minister for his reply. In order to build on the very good relations that have long existed between the steel unionsled by the largest union, Communityand the employers, Corus, will he and the Secretary of State consider working with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government to call a Welsh steel summit to ensure the long-term security and integrity of steelmaking in Wales?

The Prime Minister was asked

Gordon Brown: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman's constituents that, since 2001, our objective has been to restrain, contain and defeat terrorism by acting in Afghanistan and working with the Pakistan Government. It was true that, in 2001, al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and given cover by the Taliban there. It is also true that it is now based mainly in north Pakistan. We have to make sure that terrorism cannot hit the streets of Britain, and that is why we cannot allow the Taliban or al-Qaeda-related activities to flourish in Afghanistan, and why we cannot allow the Pakistan Government to be overrun by people who are operating through al-Qaeda and the Pakistan Taliban. What I think is encouragingand why I think that the hon. Gentleman should be able to tell his constituents that things are moving forwardis that, for the first time, the Pakistan Government are taking direct action in a systematic way, with the support of the population of Pakistan, against the Taliban and against al-Qaeda in Pakistan. That means that we have complementary action in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that is a necessary means of defeating terrorism in the world.

Gordon Brown: We should thank my hon. Friend, who was vice-chairman of the group that has submitted the interim report today. This is an important opportunity further to increase the number of women and disabled, black, Asian and minority ethnic people in our Parliament. The Government are committed to ensuring greater diversity of representation in public and political life

Gordon Brown: The whole country joins the people of Wootton Bassett in the dignified way in which they recognise the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the people of Wootton Bassett who have to endure great tragedies and effectively see them happen as they welcome back the people who have died on behalf of our country. I hopein fact, I know sothat everybody in the House will thank them for what they did yesterday.
	The purpose of our mission in Afghanistan is very clear: it is to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain. We are complementing the military action we are taking with action to build up the Afghan forcesthe police and the military forcesand with economic and social development programmes that we are pursuing in Afghanistan to give people in that country a stake in the future.
	As I have said, we must work on two fronts. We must ensure that we attack terrorism in Pakistan as well as defeat what is happening in Afghanistan. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we increased the number of forces from 8,100 to 9,000 so that we could clear ground and make it safe for the population of many areas of Afghanistan to vote in the coming general election and at the same time to enjoy the schools and the hospitals that are denied to them by the activities of the Taliban.
	I want to thank our forces involved in Operation Panther's Claw for what they are doing. They have the support of the whole country, and they have the resources and equipment they need. Of course we keep under review the numbers and the equipment needed for the future. I have said that we will look again at this after we have seen the Afghan election pass, peacefully and democratically, we hope. At the same time, I have talked to President Karzai about Afghanistan's own responsibilitiesthat the Afghans should provide army and police to Operation Panther's Claw. President Karzai has promised that he will provide additional resources for that purpose, and I believe that that is now starting to happen. I have also said to President Karzai that after October[Hon. Members: Come on] I think it is important for the House to know thisafter October, we are prepared to do more work mentoring and training the Afghan security services. We will consider that as we make our decisions on what we do after October.

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise issues about the equipment so that I can assure him that we are doing everything that we can. [Hon. Members: Answer.] I must point out that Lieutenant-Colonel Nick Richardson, who is on the ground in Afghanistan, has said:
	There's much speculation about helicopters and have we got enough. It's a sad fact that helicopters would not have saved the lives of the individuals last week.
	The commander on the ground, he said,
	has sufficient to get on with the task with which he's been given.
	And why? Because we have increased the number of helicopters by 60 per cent. over the last two years and we have increased the capability of helicopters by 84 per cent. I visited RAF Benson on Monday to see the Merlin helicopters that will be deployed in the field by the end of the year, and the training is being done immediately in America [Interruption.] Look, as they move from Iraq to AfghanistanI need to explain thisthose helicopters are dealing with different terrain. They have to re-equipped for the functions in Afghanistan, where they have to deal with heights and problems connected with temperatures and the weather. The helicopters are being refitted for that purpose. The crew have to be trained in different environments to be ready for Afghanistan.
	Over the next 10 years, our helicopter budget will be 6 billion, spent to improve our helicopters in the future. We are working with NATO, which is providing through contracts, helicopters for the transit of equipment, and at the same time, we have created a helicopter fund, which was our initiative, and others among our allies are now contributing, I believe, 11 helicopters to the allied effort in Afghanistan over the next period. We have done everything that we can to increase the number of helicopters and there will be more Merlin helicopters in the field.
	I ask the Conservative party to look at the statements being made by those who speak for our armed forces on the ground. They have made absolutely clear that in this particular instance, while the loss of life is tragic and sad, it is not to do with helicopters.

David Cameron: We must be frank about the difficulties and dangers in Afghanistan, and one of the difficulties is a shortage of helicopters.
	Let me take each of the Prime Minister's arguments in turn. He talks of a 60 per cent. increase in the number of helicopters. That is in comparison with the position three years ago, when we had half as many troops. There has not been a proportional increase in the number of helicopters. Even the 84 per cent. increase in capability relates to helicopter hours. Clearly one helicopter can be in only one place at one time. If we want to move more troops around the battlefield more quickly, we will need more helicopters.
	Let us take the argument about Nick Richardson. Of course I listen with respect to the official spokesman of the Army, but I think that the Prime Minister should also listen to someone like Stuart Tootal, who commanded 3 Para and who has said, for instance,
	In Afghanistan in 2006 repeated demands for more helicopters fell on deaf ears.
	He should also listen to Lord Guthrie [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members do not want to listen to what was said by the former Chief of the Defence Staff. He said this:
	of course they need more helicopters. If there had been more, it is... likely that fewer soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs.
	Those are important points, and we should listen to them.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister this. Is not the reason we do not have enough helicopters that we did not plan to have enough? When the Prime Minister looks back to 2004 and his decision to reduce the helicopter budget by 1.4 billion, does he remember that the National Audit Office said in that year:
	There is a considerable deficit in the availability of helicopter lift?
	Does he now recognise that that decision was a bad mistake?

Gordon Brown: First, the number of troops in Afghanistan has risen from just over 7,000 to 9,000 over the last two years. The number of helicopters has risen by 60 per cent. That is a higher percentage rise. Secondly, I have talked to Tim Radford [Interruption.] That is an increase from 7,000 to 9,000, and a 60 per cent. increase in the number of helicopters.
	Secondly, I have talked [Interruption.] I do hope that we can conduct this debate properly, because our troops will be paying attention to it as well.
	I have talked to Tim Radford, the brigadier on the ground, and he has assured me that his troops have the equipment that they need. What we want on the ground are additional Afghanistan national forces, and that is what I have been talking about to President Karzai.
	As for the defence spending programme, we have experienced the longest sustainable increase in defence spending in any period over 20 years. The reason is that, in addition to the defence budget, 14 billion has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, and 4 billion of that has been spent on urgent operational requirements for the troops. Part of the spending is on helicopters, and we have now committed 6 billion over the next 10 years to helicopter spending. We have already announced that more Merlins will arrive in the field later this year, and the helicopter fund is producing helicopters from allies as well. We have an order for more helicopters for the future. So the helicopter equipment programme continues, and we work with our allies to deliver the best services on the ground.
	I think that we should look at this particular operation, Operation Panther's Claw, and be absolutely clear that it is not an absence of helicopters that has cost the loss of lives. We are dealing with improvised explosive devices on the ground, bombs that are against [Interruption.] Since April, we have brought in more engineers to deal with that problem. Moreover, Operation Panther's Claw is making progressdespite the implication of some of these commentsand is gaining ground. That too is an important aspect of this operation. I hope that we can have a cross-party consensus on what we are doing to help our armed forces.

David Cameron: rose

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is right that our armed forces and their families are watching this debate, but on this issue they expect responsible questions to hold the Government to account and proper answers from the Government. The Prime Minister mentions the international helicopter fund. Will he accept that so farit was announced 16 months agoit has not yet added one single helicopter? The public will find it hard to understand why as a country we have 500 helicopters, yet fewer than 30 of them are in Afghanistan. Let me take one group specifically: why is it that only one of the eight Chinooks that were delivered in 2001 at great cost is now ready? Why has there not been greater urgency to deliver? That is a legitimate question, and it requires a proper answer.

Gordon Brown: The Chinooks are in the process of being adapted for Afghanistan. On the allies' contribution, three helicopters have either arrived or are about to arrive, 11 in total have been promised, and 30 million has been put into the helicopter fund by us and others. May I just explain to the right hon. Gentleman that helicopters have got to be adapted for the terrain in Afghanistan because they need to deal with excess heat and with height? Our helicopter crews have got to be trained for that particular operation in Afghanistan, and the reason that we have greater capability now is that we not only have more helicopters in the field, but more flying hours are being done by helicopter pilots and more staff are available, and we have readapted some of the helicopters to be able to make those flights.
	It is important to recognise that, yes, our military commanders will always want more equipmentand rightly sobut Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence forces, has said that our armed forces are better equipped than ever before. I am not complacentwe will always be vigilantbut I do not believe this should be a subject of cross-party disagreement. I believe that we are making the provision that is necessary both for helicopters and for equipment on the ground.

Gordon Brown: I believe that local authorities have fair powers to deal with the issue. I accept what the hon. Gentleman saysthere has to be a solution found in each region for what is happening. I shall look at what he says, but we have to ensure that we balance the needs of local residents with the other responsibilities that we have as a country.

James Paice: I am sure that the Prime Minister is right that it takes time to equip helicopters and to train the crews for Afghanistan, but why does he pretend that the need has only arisen today? The reality is that we have been there for eight years, troop numbers have been rising throughout that time, and the demand for an increase in the number of helicopters has gone on rising. Why are they still being equipped and why are crews still being trained when the demand is there? Will he explain to the House and to our troops

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman's question would have some validity if there had not been a 60 per cent. increase in helicopter numbers in the last two years, if we had not increased the operational capability of helicopters and if we were not putting more helicopters in the field as soon as we can. I have to insist that the terrain in Afghanistan is different from that in Iraq, and that is why we have to re-equip the helicopters with new blades, as well as retraining our servicemen to deal with those problems. I hope that the Conservative party will come to accept that we are doing everything that we can to equip our armed forces and that what the Chief of the Defence Staff has said is rightdespite all the difficulties, our armed forces are better equipped than ever before.

Gordon Brown: One of the things that is happening over the summer is that the Youth Parliament will sit in this Chamber while we are awayI believe that you have made that possible, Mr. Speaker. The Youth Citizenship Commission has reported in the last few weeks and it looked at the issue of voting at 16. I think that people want to combine any change in the voting age with citizenship education working even more effectively in our schools, and we remain ready to push forward that debate, which has been started by the Youth Citizenship Commission, and get the opinions of young people, as well as adults.

Gordon Brown: Any redundancies and any loss of jobs are to be regretted. I believe that we will be able to help those people who are losing their jobs back into work. We also want to secure a future for Halewood. We have offered JLR a grant of 27 million towards the development of low-carbon Land Rovers at the plant. They would be produced there. We are trying to do what we can to replace lost jobs and I will work with my right hon. Friend, because I know that he does a great deal in this area, and with others in the region to make sure that jobs come to Halewood.

Gordon Brown: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that defence spending has continued to rise in real terms, in contrast to what happened in the last years of the Conservative Government. I have to say, also, that in addition to the defence budget we have put aside 14 billion for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that our budget, in cash terms, is still the second largest in the world.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Edward Miliband: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the UK low carbon transition plan, which we are publishing today.
	All of us in this House know the gravity of the challenge that climate change poses. We know that to rise to the challenge will mean comprehensive changes in our economy and our society. We are one of the few countries in the world to exceed our Kyoto targets, we are now the leader for offshore wind generation and we are the first country in the world to legislate for carbon budgets, but the proposals published today represent the first time that we have a set out a comprehensive plan for carbon across every sectorenergy, homes, transport, agriculture and business.
	A decade ago, the carbon impact of most policies was not even measured. Last year this House passed legislation for legally binding carbon budgetsmeasurable caps on our carbon emissions. That was a dramatic change in approach, but we need to go further because every part of Government needs to be responsible for meeting those budgets. So I can announce that from today not just the country as a whole, and not just the biggest Departments, but every Department has its own carbon budget. Having been the first country in the world to set legally binding carbon budgets, we are now the first country in the world to assign every Department a carbon budget alongside its financial budget.
	The plan sets out how we will meet the carbon budgets set out by the Chancellor for an 18 per cent. reduction on today's levels by 2020, or a 34 per cent. reduction compared with 1990. Let me announce to the House how we will make the 459 million tonnes of carbon savings. In agriculture and waste, there will be a 6 per cent. cut in emissions20 million tonnesby 2020, made possible by new policies on waste and new commitments on farming.
	In the transport sector there will be savings of 14 per cent., or 85 million tonnes, by 2020, as is set out in the sustainable transport strategy published today by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. This includes plans for electrification of rail, tougher car and van emission standards, and the new 30 million fund to get low-carbon buses on the roads in the next two years. We are also doing more to bring about the transition to electric cars, with new funding making possible a recharging infrastructure in up to six cities.
	Across business and the workplace, we show how we can make 41 million tonnes of savings, or 13 per cent. on today's emissions, including through the carbon reduction commitment to be introduced next year.
	The most important reductions to meet our carbon budgets will be in how we generate and use energy. In the power and heavy industry sector, we show how emissions will be reduced by 22 per cent., or 248 million tonnes. With North sea gas production declining, if we carried on with business as usual, over the next decade our imports of gas would double. On the basis of the low carbon choices I announced today, our forecast is that rather than our gas imports doubling, they will be kept to 2010 levels for the whole of the following decade, so that with more low-carbon, home-grown energy, we avoid an ever-increasing dependence on imports.
	I have listened to representations on renewable energy and have concluded that, for reasons of energy security and climate change, it is right to go ahead with plans for 15 per cent. domestic renewable energy by 2020. In the final decisions in the Government's renewable energy strategy, published today, we show how we can secure about 30 per cent. of our electricity from wind, marine and other renewable sources. We are also publishing the shortlist of Severn tidal schemes.
	I believe it is right that we shall also go ahead with our plans for new nuclear power stations. We will publish our national policy statements on nuclear and other energy issues in the autumn, and the industry is planning at least 12.4 GW of new stationsmore than current capacity. Alongside the most environmentally stringent coal conditions in the world, the Government have proposed up to four carbon capture and storage projects, and we have proposed legislation for the next Session of Parliament to make that happen.
	Let me be clear: I believe that for the future of energy in Britain, clean coal has an essential role to play. As the plan sets out, renewables, nuclear and clean fossil fuels are the trinity of low carbon and the future of energy in Britain. It would be fatal to pick and choose between them; all of them should be part of our future energy mix. In total, our plans show that we will get 40 per cent. of our electricity from low-carbon energy by 2020 and more in the years that follow.
	To deliver the changes in our energy supplies between now and 2020, we must make it easier for investors to turn low-carbon projects into reality. Having tackled the planning rules, I believe we now need to do more to deal with the issue of grid connection, so I am today announcing that I will exercise the reserve powers provided under the Energy Act 2008 for Government, rather than the regulator, to set the grid access regime. The new rules should be in place within 12 months, so that instead of waiting for more than a decade for grid connection, as can happen now, we can get the fast access to the grid that renewable projects need.
	We also know that as we generate power in a cleaner way, we also need to use energy in a smarter way in our homes. In the plan we show how, in total, cleaner sources of heat and better use of energy can cut emissions from our homes by one quarter compared with today. We must also transform the information on energy use available to all of us, so as well as putting in place new funding today for smart grids, we propose to roll out smart meters to 26 million homes by 2020.
	We need new incentives as well as better information. The plan makes it clear that in energy efficiency, we need a house-by-house, street-by-street transformation, like the transition from town gas to North sea gas in the 1970s. Over the next decade, our plan sees families not having to pay up front, but being able to spread the costs over many years, paid for out of the savings on their energy bills. Today we take the first steps with the first pilots of the new pay-as-you-save scheme.
	As well as information for individuals and the right incentives, we know from the transition towns movement about the power of community action to motivate people, so we will provide 500,000 each to 15 areas of the country for people to come together to trial the newest technologies and be beacons for how other communities can cut their carbon emissions. In addition, I can confirm that from next April, individuals and communities alike will be able for the first time to generate their own renewable power and sell it back to the grid, with guaranteed feed-in tariffs. The details of the rates and levels on which we are consulting are set out today.
	We need reforms not only in how we produce energy and how we use it, but in how it is regulated. In the energy world of today, unlike that of 20 years ago, the job of the regulator is to help to deliver on our climate change commitments, because failure to act now will store up greater costs later. I therefore propose to change Ofgem's principal objective so that for the first time, reducing carbon emissions, as part of protecting the future consumer, will be explicitly set out as part of its guiding mission. Competition is essential, but we know from the experience of prepayment meters that it has not delivered for all consumers, so I will also make it clearer in Ofgem's principal objective that when competition does not deliver, it is its duty proactively to stand up for consumers throughout this country.
	With greater expectations of the regulator should come greater powers, so I also propose to legislate to provide Ofgem with tough new powers to take action where it believes that there is anti-competitive practice in the generation of electricity. Strong regulation is all the more important given the upward pressures on prices in the coming years. Making the energy transition will have costs, but for households those costs are significantly offset by savings resulting from energy efficiency and reduced energy demand. Today's plan will not increase average household energy bills by 2015, compared with now. For households in 2020, the plans today will mean, on average, 6 per cent. on domestic bills75 a yearcompared with today. If we include all previous policy announcements on climate change, the figure is 8 per cent.
	Given the costs of transition and the priority of tackling fuel poverty, we need to do more to protect the most vulnerable consumers, so I propose to reform the system of social tariffs, as has long been urged. More than 800,000 households now receive discounts and other help with their energy bills. That is part of a voluntary agreement with the energy companies. I propose that when the voluntary agreement ends in 2011, discounts for the most vulnerable will continue not through a voluntary arrangement but through legislation for compulsory support from the energy companies. We will legislate to increase the amount spent, and we intend to target new resources at the most vulnerable consumers, particularly older, poorer pensioners. We must make the transition to low carbon on the basis of energy security and fairness, and we must also seize the industrial opportunities, using the money that the Chancellor allocated in the Budget. We have set out plans for carbon capture and storage and, today, for new investment in nuclear manufacturing.
	As for renewables, Britain has half the usable tidal energy in Europe. Today I am committing up to 60 million to build our wave and tidal industries so that we can test new technologies and expand port access and deployment in key parts of the country. We also need to nurture the offshore wind industry, in which we have a unique resource, so I am making available up to 120 million to support the growth of a world-leading offshore wind industry in Britain. As well as supporting the demonstration and testing of offshore wind, the money will be used to attract offshore wind manufacturers to the UK. We estimate that those investments will help to nurture industries that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs in our country. We can make that investment today only because, even in the tough times, we made the choice to invest in the economy of the future.
	Climate change is the moral issue of our time. In five months' time, the world must come together at Copenhagen and follow through on last week's commitment by world leaders to stop dangerous climate change. Today we show how Britain will play its part. Our transition plan is a route map to 2020. It strengthens our energy security, it seeks to ensure that the decisions we make are fair, and above all, it rises to the moral challenge of climate change. This is a transition plan for Britain, and I commend it to the House.

Greg Clark: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. After the briefings in the weekend press, which were even further in advance, he has been generous in informing us all about the content of today's policy announcements. Like the Secretary of State, I read all the best bits months ago in the Conservative Green Paper The Low Carbon Economy, which, I am reliably informed, has lingered on his desk. That being the case, of course I welcome his remarks. This area of policy is crucial for Britain. Its consequences will affect our lives and those of future generations. Investments worth billions of pounds need to be made in a very short period. There is plenty of risk in thatrisks inherent in the capital markets, in future energy prices, and in the technologies. However, for too long, public policy in this country has been a source of additional risk for investors. I am determined that instead of amplifying uncertainty, our policy, with its clarity, rigour and consistency, should be a haven from it. That means that on this issue we should not pursue narrow short-term partisanship; instead, the long-term interests of the country must come first.
	If we are to have a fresh start, will the Secretary of State be candid in accepting that we start from a poor position? In 12 years there have been 15 Energy Ministers, but no energy policy. Does he recognise that while other countries have spent the past decade diversifying their supplies of energy, Britain has become even more dependent on imported fossil fuels? He talks about preventing that from happening in future, but I have news for him: it has already happened, and is threatening our energy security, economic competitiveness and climate change objectives.
	Britain has some of the best natural resources in the world, so will the Minister explain why no other European country, apart from Malta and Luxembourg, generates less energy from renewables than we do? Does he accept that we have the least efficient homes of any major European country, and that one consequence of that is soaring fuel poverty? Social tariffs are of course important, but we must recognise that they are a sticking plaster rather than a cure for the problem.
	Does the Secretary of State recognise that he is presenting Britain's consumers with the bill for this decade of dereliction of duty? Everyone one knows that doing things in a last-minute rush means that one always pays more than if one had planned and acted ahead of time.
	While we welcome the intention of the proposals, we will judge them against the rigour, ambition and urgency of the proposals in our paper on the low-carbon economy. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the home energy efficiency scheme will be available to every household in the country, not just to a few pilot areas? With the roll-our of smart meters already under way in America and elsewhere, why will he not set an earlier target than 2020? Does he accept that, by any logic, the required carbon capture from a power plant must be proportional to its size, and that that could best be achieved by an emissions performance standard?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman scotch the rumour that he plans for just 2 per cent. of Britain's energy to be generated under the feed-in tariffs by 2020? Above all, is he committed to the radical change required by the 2050 target, or will he dilute the low-carbon economy with imported offsets that would rob Britain of moral and industrial leadership, and developing countries of the easy wins that they need to achieve their own targets?
	Last week, the Secretary of State's brother, the Foreign Secretary, said:
	We have to be honest...change has been incremental and continuity has been strong...our low carbon revolution is still to come.
	The Secretary of State stands in a position of great moment. He must decide whether he will break with the past and implement rigorously the measures that both he and I know need to be taken, or whether the next six months, like the last 12 years, will prove to have been a time of opportunity lost.

Edward Miliband: Let me start by saying that I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remark that we should conduct the debate in as bipartisan a way as possible. I therefore regret the tone of his subsequent remarks, and I advise him that it does not make much sense for him to come to the House and say that he wants bipartisanship and then engage in attacks that are pretty much without substance.
	I shall deal first with a point that the hon. Gentleman made that I consider to be very important for people watching in the country. He would have us believe that the reason why we will pay a higher price for the switch to renewable energy is something to do with what has happened in the past few years. He knows that that is not the case, and that the transition will have costs. I advise him in all seriousness that as we conduct this debate, we need to level with people about that. I have been very open about saying to people, Look, there are costs to the transition. We will never persuade people to make the transition if we say that the costs are a result of Government inaction in the past: they are not, and the hon. Gentleman knows that, just as he knows that there are costs to the transition.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his remarks later, but let me turn now to the other points that he made. I did not hear him ask any real questions about the substance of my proposals, although I appreciate that he has not had much time to absorb them. However, I should be happy to answer any questions on the substance of the proposals, when he has some.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the roll-out of smart meters, and I can tell the House that 48 million meters will be rolled out in the next decade. It is easy for an Opposition to say, Let's do it more quickly, and that would be fine if there were ways to do that. However, we believe that 5 million meters are quite a lot to install in one year, and we are open to any quicker way of proceeding.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about offsets. The Government have taken an ambitious approach to offsets, as did the Chancellor in the Budget. We have said that we will achieve the 34 per cent. reduction through domestic action, and exclusive of the EU emissions trading scheme. That remains the case. As he will know, because his deputies will have taken part in the debate on this, we have set the credit limit for the first budget period at zero. In fact, in our plans we over-achieve on our carbon budgets, but I hope that he is not falling for the idea that any offsetting abroad is automatically a bad thing

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman may say, Ah, but the truth is that for Copenhagen we face a massive financing challenge, and developing countries are saying to us, We need the finance to be able to make the transition to low carbon. If we are to make that transition to low carbon, we need all the means at our disposal, and that means private and public finance. We have in place domestic action to meet our 34 per cent. target, but we will not say that we will never engage in buying credits from abroad, because that is the right policy.
	We have set out the rates for consultation on feed-in tariffs. We have listened to what people have to say, and we think that we have set a realistic estimate of what tariffs can achievebut if they can achieve more, that is a good thing. Let me just end [ Interruption. ] Let me just end [ Interruption. ]

Simon Hughes: I am going to ask the Secretary of State questions, not because I want to be confrontational but because his policy is lacking in certain areas. Will he confirm that the Government will wish to be judged at the next election not on words but on delivery? Will he therefore explain why, on the day that we have heard that the only company producing turbines in this country is going to close, the Government have done nothing specific to support the growth of UK-based industry in the sector? What is his estimate of the amount of new technology that will be produced in this country, as opposed to abroad, by the end either of next year or of the next five years?
	Given that we are at the bottom of the European league table on renewables, with a contribution of 2 per cent. compared with more than 30 per cent. in Sweden and almost 10 per cent. in Germany, is not the reality that, although the Chancellor announced incentives for the renewables sector in the Budget, he has subsequently failed, because the renewables industry has been waiting three months for the promised meeting to discuss how the European Investment Bank money can be accessed, and no meeting has taken place? Why have all the English regions bar one failed to reach their renewables target? What will change that situation over the next year, and the next five years? Will individual communities, including counties such as Cornwall and countries such as Wales, be able to get on with their own policies to deliver the green peninsula, in Cornwall, and the green country, in Wales, without the Government telling them what to do?
	On fuel poverty, given the criticisms by the Secretary of State's own advisory body and the fact that the number of people in fuel poverty has gone up from 1 million to 4 million, will he give a categorical promise that none of the policies that he has announced will adversely affect those on low incomesnot just the 800,000 whom he mentioned in his statement, but the millions of people on low incomesand that they will not be forced to pay the bills for the policy that he has announced? Will the bills fall on the private sector, with its big profits, and on those of us who can afford to pay, so that in the end we have a fairer Britain, not just a greener Britain?
	The Secretary of State knows that my party does not share the Labour-Tory love-in with the nuclear industry. Is it not true that no new UK nuclear power station has ever been built on time or to budget? Is it not also true that the more that he and his friends cosy up to the nuclear industry, the more likely it is that the renewables industry will not get the support and technological investment that it needs?
	On the grid, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said as far as it goes, but how soon will there be flexible access, which has been denied for years, so that people can start to contribute as they have been waiting to do? Are we as a country now committed to the European super-grid? If so, what are we going to do about it?
	Two last things, if I may. First, are we going to

Edward Miliband: The Liberal spokesman asks serious questions that deserve answers. Let me try to answer them as best as I can.
	We had discussions with Vestas, but I want to make it clear that it never wanted grants or money to persuade it to stay in this country. The option was obviously considered with the company, but there were two factors in its decision. The first aspect is that it was making turbines for America, where it had a factory. The second aspect is related to the hon. Gentleman's point about renewables, and is a big issue for everyone in the House. It is about planningnot so much the planning rules, because we are changing them, although unfortunately the Opposition want to reverse that change, but the question of whether one can get onshore wind turbines built. Vestas' speciality is onshore wind, and that requires political persuasiona hard job for all parts of the House. The job is to persuade people that although onshore wind turbines may be unsightly to some, the bigger threat to the countryside is not wind turbines but climate change. Of course there are areas where wind turbines would be inappropriate, and we have proposals today in our renewable energy strategy about how we can work with local people to site the turbines more sensitively, but they have to go somewhere, and we all need to focus on that necessity.
	We are proceeding with the investments via the European Investment Bank, the money will be going out of the door soonin the autumn, I thinkand we are going as fast as we can. If there is an issue about meetings with representatives, I am happy to address it.
	On fuel poverty, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we face a massive challenge. It will be an even bigger challenge in the future. I am happy to work together on the issue, but we need to find all the ways to tackle fuel poverty that we can. Reforming social tariffs is a good start, but if there are other ways we should definitely use them, because given the upward pressures on prices, fuel poverty will be a big challenge over the next decadeand, frankly, beyond that.
	The hon. Gentleman and I disagree about nuclear energy. I am not engaged in a love-in with the nuclear industry, but I do think that nuclear energy has an important role to play. On grid access, I said that the new plans would be in place within a year, and that that is how we will speed up the connections, because I did not want the stand-off between the industry and Ofgem to continue.
	The super-grid is an interesting idea, but it is expensive. None the less, we are happy to explore it, and we are doing so. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman separately about some of the other questions that he raised.

Colin Challen: I very much welcome the statement, because I thinkor at least, I hope, because I have not read the White Paper yetthat it represents a big break from the energy policy of every Government since the time of Gladstone, which has been Dig it up and burn it. Latterly, of course, that has included uranium. I hope that we are going to shift away from that territory, but I would welcome a statement by my right hon. Friend about how we will convince the likes of BP, Centrica, Shell and the owners of Scottish Power to reinvest in renewables, because during the recession they seem to have backed off.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alan Simpson: I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to remind the press, as well as the House, that the one comprehensive study on the costs of introducing an ambitious framework of feed-in tariffs has shown that, by 2020, the UK energy account would be 12.5 billion better off as a result of our being able to produce our energy rather than importing it. That, however, depends on the introduction of an ambitious scheme.
	I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend came back with a specific answer to the question of percentages. Is he still working to a 2 per cent. contribution of renewable energy from feed-in tariffs? That figure was first set out in the Element Energy report and it was limited to assumptions about a threshold of 50 kW. The Secretary of State was responsible for a hundredfold increase in that. Does the scale of our ambitions now match his original intentions?

Peter Lilley: Why did the Secretary of State's reassuring figures on the impact of these measures on household budgets contradict the figures in his most recent impact statement, which showed that the cost of renewables currently adds 15 per cent. to electricity billsa figure set to rise to nearly 50 per cent.and that the increase in gas bills will be 46 per cent.?

Michael Meacher: How does my right hon. Friend justify offering the airline industry a virtual exemption from the disciplines that will apply to almost all other industrial sectors? According to projections, by 2050 the rise in aircraft emissions is expected to negate the cuts made in all other industrial sectors. Surely this cuckoo-in-the-nest protection of one highly polluting industry is simply no longer tenable?

Adam Ingram: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Scottish fossil fuel levy fund, which stands at 150 million and is rising almost exponentially. The money can be spent only on the promotion of renewable energy, yet the Scottish National party-controlled Administration in Edinburgh will not draw it down. I ask my right hon. Friend to use all his influence to encourage them to use that money for the purposes for which it has been raised.

Desmond Turner: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is recognising the potential contribution of wave and tide technology towards our renewables targets, and I am glad that he has made provision for its support. However, that provision does not account for even 50 per cent. of the 405 million provided in the Budget for renewable energy support. Furthermore, on the face of this statement, it does not take into account the special difficulties faced by the wave and tidal industry at present: there is a zero market for it.
	Offshore wind, however, has the double renewables obligation certificates regime, which is fine for such a well established technology. Many severe problems face the wave and tide technology industry, which needs Government help to get it over the hurdles. Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about what he plans to do about that?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has made an important point. We need to consider how to drive forward marine and tidal technology, including in respect of the ROCs issue, which he raised. As for the 405 million, we are spending the money carefully and will make further announcements in due course.

Edward Miliband: The committee will produce its first report cardas I think we should now call iton our progress in September, and it will then produce annual report cards.

Paul Flynn: As the world's only new nuclear power station is already three years late in its construction and 2 billion over budget, is it not better to concentrate on the wonderful opportunities that we have for marine energy? In this country, we have half the amount of all the potential in Europe for exploiting tidal power. Is not the way forward to concentrate on power sources that are carbon-free, British and eternal? Why is the opportunity vast but the investment puny?

Mark Durkan: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome many of the commitments made in it, although some of us are not persuaded on the cost or contribution of nuclear in this context. The test will be in the detail of delivery. Does he recognise that there are eight different Administrations in these islands which have different interests and involvements in energy, renewable energy, conservation measures and fuel poverty, and that he will therefore need to co-ordinate all those Administrations, possibly through the British-Irish Council, to ensure that these islands become a positive and strong centre for renewable energy?

John Maples: In developing these policies, what account has the Secretary of State taken of two recent but rather unexpected pieces of scientific evidence? One is the Hadley Centre's series of global temperatures, which is one of the four series used by the IPCC, and which shows cooling since 1998. More recently, the American series developed by NASA, which uses measurements from satellites in space and is thought to be the most accurate of all, shows global cooling over the past 30 years.

Edward Miliband: I was not aware of the second piece of evidence that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On the first piece of evidence and more generally, one problem is that the results of studies taking 1998 as a starting point are very adversely affected by the impact of El Nio, which caused a significant amount of global warming. Therefore, it may look as though there has been overall cooling since 1998, but the evidence over a longer period of two decades that I have seen and have been advised on suggests that climate change is getting worse, not better.

Jeff Ennis: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the 1980s this country was the world leader in the development of clean coal technology via the fluidised bed plant at Grimethorpe colliery in my constituencyuntil the Thatcher Government pulled the plug on its funding? Does he agree that Yorkshire again has a leading role to play, this time not just in the development of clean coal technology but in the development of carbon capture and storage?

Edward Miliband: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was not in the Conservative party in those dayshe was in a different political partybut mistakes were made. There are imaginative proposals from Yorkshire Forward about these matters, as well as from a number of other regions of our country. I hope that they can benefit from our proposals on carbon capture and storage.

Roger Williams: I am sure that everyone will welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a definite day1 April 2010for the introduction of feed-in tariffs. For those companies and individuals that are producing renewable energy with the benefit of the ROC system, will there be an opportunity to change to a feed-in system if that is more appropriate?

Peter Bone: Was the Secretary of State slightly disappointed by the Chancellor's U-turn in putting up air passenger duty rather than taxing planesin other words taxing passengers rather than the polluter?

Several hon. Members: rose

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to invoke your help to improve ministerial accountability to the House. Paragraph 9.3 of the ministerial code states:
	Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess.
	However, we all know that every single July we have a plethora of 30 or 40 written statements on the last day before we go into recess, including a whole lot of bad news that is being buried together. I have raised the matter with the Prime Minister on a number of occasions through written questions. Most recently, I asked him what steps he would take to ensure compliance with paragraph 9.3 of the ministerial code, to which he replied:
	Guidance for Ministers on announcements is set out in the Ministerial Code.[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108W.]
	That was all there was. What steps can you take, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that next week we do not have 30 or 40 statements on the last day as usual?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The answer to his question is that I can certainly reiterate today what I have said on previous occasions and indicated in writing to the Leader of the House, who I know takes ministerial responsibility for these matters extremely seriouslynamely, that replies to written questions should be timely, and that they should also be substantive. It would, I think, represent a breach of the spirit of the principle that I have set out, if not of the letter, if Ministers were simply to reply with what I suppose the hon. Gentleman would call a holding response. What is needed is a substantive reply, and it might interest the House to know that I requested of all Ministers a matter of a fortnight or so ago that the backlog of written questions should be cleared, with substantive replies, before the summer recess.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sympathetic to getting Back Benchers inI served as a Back Bencher for rather a long time myself, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I know that he would not for one moment try to draw me beyond what I have already said on the matter. For the avoidance of doubtit is important to be balancedI said during Prime Minister's questions that, exceptionally today, in rather exceptional circumstances, questions and answers from the Front Bench were notably longer than usual. I would like some economy in those matters so that more Back-Bench Members get to ask questions of the Prime Minister.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about procedure on a pressing matter. Today, I sent an urgent fax to the Secretary of State for Health, which needs a reply and his intervention today, about the shameful behaviour of NHS Leeds towards the family of Dr. John Hubley, who tragically died under its care. NHS Leeds is now trying to overturn the coroner's report, deny its culpability andoutrageouslythreaten the family with liability for legal costs. There is no other way of holding it to account, so is there a way, Mr. Speaker, that I can raise the matter, or another way in which I can insist on a response and intervention from the Secretary of State today? Tomorrow will be too latethe deadline is today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which is firmly on the record. Frankly, I am not sure whether what he has just said constitutes a point of order, but to be helpful to him and the House let me say that, if memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman raised the matter at business questions last Thursday, and he was promised a ministerial replywhen the Leader of the House responded to him, that promise was given. Let me gently say to those on the Treasury Bench that, if an hon. Member is promised a reply on the Thursday of one week, failure to deliver it by the following Wednesday is below par.

Mr. Speaker: I have to say to the hon. LadyI know that it will disappoint herthat I have had no indication from any Minister of an intention to come to the House and make a statement on the matter, and I am not in a position to require one. However, she has made her point with her usual force and alacrity.

Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sending of unsolicited mail to elderly people; and for connected purposes.
	By chance, we have a debate later today on care for the elderly, so I am particularly pleased to introduce this ten-minute Bill. A Government Green Paper on paying for care for the elderly was also published yesterday. I want to consider another way in which the House should care for elderly people, however, because I believe that we can judge a society by how it looks after its old people.
	I want to consider the all-too-common situation facing some old people. They will probably live alone. Typically, they may be old women, who are possibly widowed. Through their doors, piles of mail pour dailyI have such a pile hereto be read by a person who was raised in a gentler and more honest society than ours. Of course, many old people are busy and active with friends, and understand what to do with junk mailnamely, throw it away. However, others are lonely and perhaps confused and bored. They have time to read the junk mail, and an industry has been created that preys on them.
	A constituent first alerted me to the problem. Since then, the personal experience of my 89-year-old mother has revealed the problem in all its detailand she is registered with the Mailing Preference Service. However, I am not making a personal plea. Only today, I spoke to a journalist who had the exactly the same experience with his old father before he died, and I have also read a three-year-old article from  The Guardian, which believed in September 2006 that the Office of Fair Trading would introduce a solution.
	The problem has two sides. The first is less serious and involves mail from charities, many of which have laudable aims. Mailshots are an accepted and possibly important way in which to raise to money, and many people are employed by charities to do mailshots. I am sure that that raises money for what one hopes are good causes. However, I suggest that all charities examine their consciences and the aims of their work and consider whether they should target old, confused and lonely people, tugging at their heartstrings to get money out of them. Let me give a few examples. I have a pile of letters from animal charities, including Animals in Crisis; the Dogs Trust; Compassion in World Farming; Spana, which is about animals in Spain; World Horse Welfare; Network for Animals; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I also have letters from human charities, including St. Christopher's Fellowship; VSO; St. Mungo's; Feed My People; Medical Mission International; Ethiopia Aid; Christian Blind Mission andmost perverselyHelp the Aged. All those begging letters arrived in one month. Indeed, Help the Aged wrote to an 89-year-old woman, pointing out that she had cancelled her direct debit and asking if she would like to reinstate it. Such a charity could have applied a little common sense.
	I do not doubt the good intentions of many of those charities, if not all of them, but I question whether they should bombard elderly people in that manner. I suggest, first, that charities should have a box that over-75s might tick to indicate their age, and then a voluntary code, providing that they will not send further begging letters to over-75s. I also suggest that they employ common sense. If an elderly person is subjected to constant direct mail, the charities should be somewhat ashamed of themselves. The worst example is from IFAW. I have several letters that suggest that an elderly person has won 20,000. We all know that that is not true, but IFAW and its chief executive, Mr. Fred O'Regan, send elderly people letters, which say that all they need to do is register to be entered into a fantastic prize draw: Red Hot Cash Payout35,000 of prizes to be won. It states that if people follow the rules, cash prize funds will be paid to winners. IFAW should be ashamed of itself.
	However, the second element is much more pernicious, and there is nothing laudable in the motives of those responsible. Direct mail is being sent to elderly peopleand, I suspect, otherspretending that the recipient has won money. All the recipient has to do is buy something useless and worthless or send money to receive a huge cash prize. I have here a large piletoo large to hold in one handof one month's largely unopened junk mail. Some letters come from something called Our Life in Greenford. There is another from the Department of Information, again in Greenford, which states: You have won 20,500. A letter from Biotonic, also in Greenford, states exactly the same thing, except that some Biotonic and Star Shopping letters say:
	You have won 15,500your winning status is certifiedcongratulations.
	Interestingly, all those documents state that people cannot write to Greenford but have to send their money to Anderlecht in Belgium or somewhere else in the European Union. I can see that the post office in Greenford is extremely busy. Spookily, most of the entities have the same postcode.
	There is also something called the Skills Testing Unit, which tells elderly people that they have an official cheque for 34,000 waiting. Better yet is the prize of 9.492 million, which will be paid directly to the person who responds. All people have to do is register for the Australian lottery. I suggest that there is only a small difference in scale between that and the e-mails that we have all received, usually from Africa, telling us that if we help Mr. X get his 20 million out of some dodgy country, he will split it with us 50:50. Riches beyond the dreams of avarice apparently await us: we need only send the details of our bank accountsmany people each year do send themand we will be set up for life. It sounds too good to be true; and, of course, it is too good to be trueit is fraudulent and criminal.
	The question that I would like to ask about the sort of letters to which I have referred is this: why are those people not prosecuted for fraudulently trying to obtain money from vulnerable people? Surely the people who send such letters are behaving in a manner that should require, at the very least, questions to be asked by the Office of Fair Trading, the police, trading standards or others. What loopholes are those people exploiting? Why do the Government or another authority not close those loopholes and pursue such companies?
	A ten-minute Bill, as everybody here knows, is just a way of raising an issue. I am not, in fact, proposing new laws or even new regulations. Instead, I am calling on the conscience of charities, and for them to work on a simple code of conduct, so that they do not exploit the elderly to help their causes, which may or may not be deserving. At the same time, the Government, the police and other authorities should give serious attention to preventing fraudsters and near-fraudsters from sending unsolicited mail to elderly people and taking their money on a dishonest premise. Such people are making the elderly, for whom we all share responsibility, the victims of blatant scams.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Andrew Robathan present the Bill.
	Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October and to be printed (Bill 135).

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its very great concern that the Extradition Act 2003 is being undermined by a series of high profile cases that are jeopardising confidence in the extradition system; and calls on the Government to hold immediately a review of the Act with a view to reforming it at the earliest opportunity to deal with the issues of public concern.
	I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying Mr. Speaker's judgment in this matter. If it helps, let me give Members a brief background. The Gary McKinnon case has been extensively publicised in recent days, but it cannot currently be the subject of debate in this House, as you rightly say, because of the rules that apply on sub judice. The McKinnon case is currently subject to a further round of legal proceedings in the courtsproceedings that were taking place this morning and, as far as I am aware, are still taking place as we speak this afternoon. The House has strict rules about debating matters where legal proceedings are in train. Under a resolution of this House that was passed on 15 November 2001 on matters that are sub judice, we cannot discuss the case unless and until those proceedings are concluded.
	However, the concerns that exist about our current extradition arrangements go much wider than simply the McKinnon case. The matter has been debated and issues have been raised for a number of years. As I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the McKinnon case has brought those issues back to the fore. That is why we have sought to use this time to allow Members in all parts of the House to discuss those concerns and to send a clear message to Ministers that we want the current situation to be reviewed. Such a review is vital to maintain the integrity of the extradition system, to make changes to ensure that it is fair and just, and to ensure that it enjoys public confidence.
	There is no doubt that public confidence has been sorely lacking in the past few years. In several cases raised by hon. Members on behalf of constituents there has been a prima facie case for believing that justice was not being done. Current events make the case for a review all the more urgent. The motion that we will vote on at the end of this debate is therefore designed to underline the case for such a review. The motion does not seek to prescribe what changes should take place, even though many right hon. and hon. Members will have strong views about the detail. Neither does it seek to condemn the Government for their handling of our extradition system in recent years. The motion is simply designed to demonstrate that there is a will in Parliament for change. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will join me in the Lobby to send a message to Ministers about the need for change.
	Extradition is a pretty trying process for a person to go through and it can take an immense psychological and physical toll. In the United Kingdom alone, the act of extracting someone from their home to stand trial and then serve a prison sentence will change their life for ever. To do that to someone and also send them to a foreign country with a different legal system is something that should be decided only in a process of the utmost rigour and scrutiny. That is why any system that is put in place to manage such a process must be subject to the most serious checks and balances on both sides of the arrangement. It is our fear on the Conservatives Benchesand, I suspect, among Members in all parts of the Housethat the arrangements that are currently in place for extradition from the United Kingdom do not meet the criteria that we would expect on reciprocity and fairness.

Keith Vaz: The previous Home Secretary but one is on record as saying that when the agreement was signed, Britain did not get the best possible deal from the United States. The Opposition have put forward a very modest motionit is a motion not to end extradition, but to review it. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that issue should form part of a review, to ensure that we get the possible deal for our citizens, even when we are dealing with allies and friends?

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has now acknowledged that, in considering this matter, we should consider issues of principle. Would not a reasonable principle to take into accounta principle that might have formed part of his motionbe that the constitutional position of British citizens under the extradition treaty should be no less strong than the constitutional position of American citizens?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Indeed, if the Home Secretary will consider opening such a review, as I very much hope he will after today's debate, I believe strongly that the principle that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just outlined should underpin it.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the United States. Our arrangements with the United States have most regularly been the subject of question and concern, although the issue also applies to our legal relationships with other countries. I am not seeking to criticise the conduct of the United States or any other countrythey are rightly looking after the interests of their citizens. Rather, it is this Parliament and our Government who make the rules surrounding extradition from the United Kingdom. The Extradition Act 2003 set the framework for those rules, but we are unconvinced that it is working in the way that we should expect.
	We on the Conservative Benches have spent many an hour over the past few years pointing out some of the iniquities of the current arrangements, as have many outside this House, as well as Members from other parties here. Once again, the Government have constructed a piece of legislation that, although intended to do something useful and important, has managed to spread into a whole host of other areas. Frankly, we have seen that again and againindeed, it is a trap that the Government have fallen into on many occasions.
	Let us take the example of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It was designed to address terrorism and serious crime, but it is now used by local councils to do a whole range of things for which it was not intended, such as spying on garden centres to see whether they are selling pot plants without planning permission for a change in use, or monitoring dog walkers with covert CCTV cameras. The law of unintended consequences has been all too present in the legislative processes of the past few years.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come back to that issue, because another key question is where we should implement justice when a case involves multiple jurisdictions.
	British citizens can be extradited to other parts of Europe for a range of extraordinarily ill-defined offences that might not even constitute a crime here or in many other European countries. There have already been examples of the European arrest warrant being used in a way that most of us would feel was inconsistent with the original principles discussed at the time of its introduction. The rapid move to strengthen extradition arrangements in the first part of this decade was clearly designed to combat the terror threat, but those new arrangements should not be allowed to become a quick and convenient way of bypassing what would have been the due process for other forms of charge and alleged offence.
	The second big problem with the present arrangements involves the way in which we appear to be sub-contracting justice to other countries in cases in which there appears to be a competing jurisdiction. This goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made a moment ago. There is a strong case for arguing that the courts should have a statutory duty to consider issues of what is called forumin other words, the question of which country has the most appropriate claim to prosecuteand that this country should not sub-contract difficult prosecutions to other countries.
	This problem is going to arise again and again in cases involving cybercrime in particularmy hon. Friend has just mentioned computer hackingnot only in the Gary McKinnon case but in a whole variety of others around the world. I remind the House of the recent case of the two Swedish men who were prosecuted in their own country for piracy offences, but whose crimes had clearly crossed jurisdictions around the world. The provisions of the law in this country should be much clearer about when a case should or should not be tried in the United Kingdom. There are clear legal precedents for this: British people charged with crimes that were allegedly committed in the United Kingdom but which electronically targeted organisations in other countries have been brought before the courts in the United Kingdom.
	Let us take as an example the case of Aaron Caffrey, a young British man suffering from Asperger's syndrome, who was blamed for causing the biggest systems crash ever to hit the United States. During a two-week trial at Southwark Crown court in 2003, Caffrey was accused of launching an electronic attack in 2001 on America's busiest port at Houston, Texas. The jury cleared him of any wrongdoing after accepting his claim that unknown computer users had hijacked his machine, using it as a Trojan horse to stage the attack. His case was tried in this country, and he was found not guilty. He was not extradited to the United States.
	Then there was Richard Pryce, a man said to have been
	doing more harm than the KGB
	and dubbed the
	No. 1 threat to US security.
	Pryce, working from his bedroom with two 750 computers to help him with exams, hacked into systems at NASA and at US air bases. From there, he explored systems in south-east Asia, causing chaos when he invaded the computer of a Korean atomic research institute. At the time, the Americans were in the midst of delicate negotiations with the North Koreans, and they were terrified because the break-in appeared to originate from a US air base. In 1997, Bow street magistrates fined the 19-year-old 1,200 after he admitted 12 offences that his lawyer described as a schoolboy prank.
	There was also the case of Andrew Harvey and Jordan Bradley, who were part of an Anglo-American hacking group that set out to cause worldwide chaos by infiltrating home computers. The US security services and the FBI co-ordinated raids on the homes of the group's members, including those of Harvey in County Durham and Bradley in Darlington. At Newcastle Crown court in 2005, Harvey, aged 24, was jailed for two months, and Bradley, aged 22, for three months when they admitted conspiracy to cause unauthorised modification of computers with intent.
	In all those instances, the crimes were tried in the United Kingdom and extradition was not required. It is important to state that I am not commenting on the verdicts or on the circumstances of those cases; I am simply underlining that Britain has in the past been willing and able to try people in the United Kingdom when there are issues of conflicting jurisdictions, and I believe that our extradition arrangements should reflect that.
	The Police and Justice Act 2006 incorporated provisions to insert an appropriate forum requirement into the Extradition Act 2003. However, the Government have refused to activate it. It provides that if extradition is not in the interests of justice, it can be barred, and that a decision not to prosecute in the UK may be a relevant factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) sought to activate this provision while the current Policing and Crime Bill was being considered in this House, but his efforts were talked out.
	The late, and sadly lamented, Lord Kingsland and my noble Friend Baroness Hanham tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill that would affect the Police and Justice Act 2006. The amendment would provide that paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 13 should come into force on the day on which the Policing and Crime Act 2009 is passed. In the light of this debate, and of the issues that lie behind it, perhaps Labour Members in another place might wish to consider carefully whether to join us in trying to redress this imbalance.
	The third big problem relates to the imbalances that existdespite what the Government claim in their amendmentin the current extradition arrangements. As hon. Members have pointed out, there is an inherent unfairness relating to the evidence that needs to be presented to begin an extradition. Countries that are classified for the purposes of the 2003 Act as category 2 countries can be given an additional designation, enabling them to dispense with the requirement to provide prima facie evidence with their extradition requests. A territory in the enhanced category 2 status need only provide information rather than evidence to satisfy tests for the issuing of warrants. Under section 84 of the Act, the United States need only provide
	evidence which would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by the person if the proceedings were the summary trial of any information against him.
	That is pretty weak anyway, but this provision is not reciprocal; there is an imbalance in the evidential requirements for extradition between the US and the UK.
	Even members of the Government accepted that the extradition arrangements were unfair. When these issues were debated in Standing Committee, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) gave a candid assessment of arrangements:
	If the second order designating category 2 territories is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany its extradition requests to the United Kingdom...In contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States, we will need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that. Under the terms of its constitution the USA cannot set its evidential standard any lower than 'probable cause'...I do not see why we should impose a more stringent test on the USA. Nor do I see why the absence of complete reciprocity affects the issue.[ Official Report, Third  Standing  Committee on Delegated Legislation , 15 December 2003; c. 7.]
	Well, I think that the right hon. Lady was wrong then, that the Government have been wrong about this issue, and that it is essential to address it. Her candid observations will provide little comfort to those who will suffer because of the different levels of evidence required. It is this issue that, I suspect more than most, underpins many of the cases that Members of all parties have brought forward when their constituents have found themselves caught up in a system that they rightly think is unfair and risks causing some real injustices.
	There have been practical examples, as in the case of Alex Stone, who was extradited to the US because he was accused of injuring the child of a woman whom he had met online. Yet once he had been extradited, the original charges against him were dropped. His lawyer commented at the time:
	No longer do the American authorities have to provide prima facie evidence for extradition, but what is also of concern is what happened to Alex Stone when he was returned to the US.
	This in an example in which there was not even sufficient evidence to pursue a case once the extradition had taken place. That surely underlines the concerns that rightly exist about the current system. We think that those imbalances need to be addressed and that there should be reciprocity in our extradition arrangements. We also think that a reasonable burden of proof should apply before someone can be extradited.

Chris Grayling: I would love to be able to give my right hon. Friend an answer to that question, but I do not have a clueit makes no sense to me, and I simply cannot understand the thought processes. I know that the Home Secretary has inherited from his predecessors a pig in a poke, but I cannot understand why reciprocity was not a basic principle of an extradition treaty. It makes no logical sense, and we can see the consequences in the cases I mentioned. I do not seek to comment on the guilt or otherwise of any of those people, but I believe their cases highlight the ways in which current arrangements are rightly subject to criticism and why there is a real need for reform.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right, but sufficient time has now passed, regardless of the original reasons, for it to be both sensible and logical to embark on a review of those arrangements in order to see what can be done to improve them.
	Some other countries refuse to extradite their citizens at all. As a nation, we have not chosen that path, but we should exercise maximum caution in circumstances where we allow the extradition of British people. We should seek proper reciprocity in our mutual arrangements with other nations; we should be much more clearly willing to try in this country cases that affect multiple jurisdictions; we should make sure our arrangements do not have mission creep and are used for the purposes they were intended fornot those they were never intended for. I believe that the will of this House is for these issues to be looked at again. After six years of the Act's operation, it is time to examine not only where it is working

Alan Johnson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. I sense that he is coming to the end of his speech. The motion talks about
	a series of high profile cases.
	I have heard about one case, on which Mr. Speaker has ruled, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could set out the other high-profile cases. [Hon. Members: He has.]

Chris Grayling: If the Home Secretary wants me to do so briefly, we could take the case of the former chief executive of Morgan Crucible, for example. We greatly debated the NatWest three at the time, and I suspect that as our debate continues we will hear from a number of hon. Members about cases where similar issues have arisen. I do not know the exact number, but there are many casesprobably a dozenwhere these issues are relevant. I found the particular case of the former boss of Morgan Crucible to be one of the most alarming. He was threatened with extradition for committing an offence that did not exist at the time his actions took place. This is a matter of particular concern to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who will undoubtedly say more about it in his winding-up speech.
	As I was saying, I think that the will of this House is for these issues to be looked at again. After six years of the Act's operation, it is time to examine where it is working and where it is not. The Home Secretary says he wants lots of cases, but I believe that that if there is just one injustice as a result of these arrangements, it is one injustice too many. We are conducting this debate today because we fear that there may well be one injustice too many, and we need the Government to look at what they can do about it. People outside the House will be looking at what we say and do today and hoping against hope that Ministers will go away from this debate with a commitment to look at not only one injustice, but all of them. I hope that Ministers will accept the need for review, and that they will go forth today accepting that the will of the House is for change. I hope that the House will back this motion and that it will lead to a proper review of our extradition system.

Alan Johnson: I am sorry, but the headings on the Order Paper read as follows: Main Business, Opposition Day (16th allotted day), US-UK Extradition Treaty. I am well aware of the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, but the point that I am making is that a case has not been made for reviewing the 2003 Act. As for
	a series of high profile cases,
	there are two such cases, and I shall say something about them shortly.
	First, I want to talk about the 2003 Act. I am pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned the European arrest warrant. I have read the report of the Second Reading of the 2003 Act, which took place in December 2002. It was a very interesting debate. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)at the time, he was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which did an awful lot of work on the Billsaid:
	I will vote against the Bill because I disapprove of... specifically the changes to dual criminality.[ Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 106.]
	That issue related specifically to the European arrest warrant. However, I cannot find a single mention of reciprocity in the report of the Second Reading debate. The issue on which the Liberal Democrats, I believe, abstained and the Conservative Opposition walked through the No Lobby was, once again, their absolute fixation with Europe and the European arrest warrant. [Hon. Members: Rubbish!] Those who are saying Rubbish should read the report of the debate in  Hansard.

Alan Johnson: I have been around for long enough to know that when one is advancing an effective argument, there are an awful lot of interventions. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has said that this is not about UK-US relations, although the heading of the Conservatives' own motion says that it is. Then there is what happened on Second Reading. I am not making this up; it is on the record in  Hansard. There was no mention of reciprocity or UK-US relations [ Interruption. ]apart from by the Liberal Democrats. Her Majesty's official Opposition were concentrating on the European arrest warrant, to which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield referred in his intervention. The debate was totally dominated by that issue.

Alan Johnson: I am sure that people have argued it. I am telling the House what happened on Second Reading. Second Reading is important to this debate, because we are talking about reviewing the 2003 Act, and I returned to it to see what was controversial at that time.
	The 2003 Act provides the necessary framework to ensure that people who have committed serious crimes cannot evade justice by virtue of their residence in another country. Such arrangements are critical in an age when crimein particular, serious and organised crime and terrorismknows no national borders, and bringing perpetrators to justice depends increasingly on effective co-operation between criminal justice systems across the world.
	It was wrong to suggest that the 2003 Act was brought before the House as a result of 9/11. In fact, the report on which it was based was published in March 2001, months before 9/11, as a result of a long and studious examination by the Home Affairs Committee and others. The reason a change was needed thenunlike nowis that extradition was then governed by the Extradition Act 1989, whose purpose was to ensure that the UK complied with the European convention on extradition, signed in 1957, which in itself consolidated legislation made as long ago as about 1879. There was a real need to update the system.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was then Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, said:
	Our extradition arrangements are in urgent need of reform. On average, it takes 18 months to extradite someone from the UK and, in many cases, much longer. The system allows the fugitive to raise the samearguably, often spuriouspoints time and again, and to mount numerous legal challenges. Even whenas has happened many timesan individual appeals all the way to the House of Lords following the committal hearing, he
	or she
	can, once the Secretary of State has considered the case, appeal all the way again on exactly the same grounds.[ Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 39.]
	This was a system that had been in urgent need of reform for many years. The point that I am making is that before saying that we want to look into and reform a system, we must consider the effects that that would have. We should not be changing the Extradition Act every couple of years. The 2003 Act dealt with some serious anomalies, and it dealt with them successfully.

Alan Johnson: No. I will make some progress before taking any more interventions.
	The 2003 Act has simplified extradition procedures, while ensuring that the rights of those wanted in other countries are upheld. The amount of time that it takes to extradite people from other countries in Europe has been reduced from an average of 18 months to 50 days. The 2003 Act has been instrumental in bringing criminals to justice. It has made possible the operation of the European arrest warrant, which I do not believe has failedfor instance, it led to the extradition of Hussain Osman, who was wanted in connection with the failed bombing attempts in London on 21 July 2005. The use of the European arrest warrant meant that he was returned to the UK in a matter of weeks as opposed to months or even years, as might have been case under the 1989 Act.

Simon Burns: rose

Alan Johnson: I am sorry, but I did not frame this motion; the Opposition did. I am just pointing out the disparities. Of course I want to talk about the 2003 Act and the UK-US treaty, because they are both important subjects in this debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman intervened on me to say that this is not just all about the US and the UK, but it is also about Europe. That is where this particular discussion comes from.
	I disagree profoundly about there being an absence of any safeguards, but I shall come on to that shortly, and I certainly reject the suggestion that the extradition arrangements between the UK and the US, as set out in the 2003 Act and in the treaty, are somehow unbalanced. That argument has traditionally been made on the following basis. First, it is argued that the evidential requirement placed on US authorities seeking to extradite people from the UK is somehow less burdensome than the evidence that the UK is expected to produce to extradite people from the US.
	Historically, all requests by countries to extradite people from the UK had to provide prima facie evidence. There are too many right hon. and hon. and learned Members present for me to have to explain this, but I will do so for the record: prima facie evidence is evidence that if taken at face value would be enough to convict someone. This was a much stronger requirement than some other nations demanded for UK extradition requests. The requirement was dropped for all EU member states, signatories to the 1957 European convention on extradition and other trusted international partners with mature judicial systems such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. UK courts instead asked for reasonable suspicionin other words, the same level of evidence required by the magistrates court to issue an arrest warrant in the UK.
	Following the introduction of the 2003 Act, the relaxation of the evidence requirement was extended to cover other trusted extradition partners including, but not limited to, the US. That is hugely significant, because it means that the UK and the US now demand of each other essentially the same level of evidence. The imbalance was prior to the change, not after it.

Alan Johnson: No, I will take an intervention later.
	The US and the UK have different legal systems. I am sure that there are no hon. Members who think that we could put the two legal systems together andhey presto!get similar definitions. However, what we ask for in demonstrating reasonable suspicion is as follows: the
	circumstances of the case being such that a reasonable man
	this language is not gender-friendly
	acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence.
	That is what we in this country apply.
	The US asks in its legal terminology for probable causethis dates back to the constitution, so it has always been the case and was not developed as part of the treatywhich is defined as
	facts and circumstances which are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
	Those two definitions are about as close as they can be in any two different legal systems.

David Burrowes: The Home Secretary has been consistent in seeking to rebut the argument that there is imbalance and that the 2003 Act is lopsided, but does he accept the words of the Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland, during the passage of the 2003 Act? She explicitly said:
	when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1063.]
	She was clear that it is imbalanced; why is the Home Secretary not?

Alan Johnson: Flattery gets my hon. Friend everywhere; I will allow her to intervene at any time. The first point to make is that this is not the issue in one of the high-profile cases, namely that of Gary McKinnonI shall come on to that. I am dealing with a specific point that was the issue in another high-profile case: that of the NatWest three, which I shall also come on to shortly. As I am not legally trainedI am not a lawyer or a barrister; I am a hack politicianI can only go by the advice that I receive from lawyers in the Attorney-General's Department as to what these two definitions mean. I think that I am digging myself into quite enough trouble with the legal profession.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) reminds me that this is even worse; Baroness Scotland was not a legal officer when she made that announcement, but a Home Office Minister.
	It is assumed that the fact that more people have been extradited to the US from the UK than the other way round somehow indicates an imbalancethe hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell did not use that in his argument, but the most common argument used against the treaty deals first with reciprocity and secondly with that fact, rather than simply telling us that more people flee the US for the UK than the other way round. It is the case that between 2001 and 2008, about 30 people were extradited to the UK, compared with around 60 being extradited to the US. Since 2007, however, we have extradited more people from the US than vice versa, and many of the people extradited since the 2003 Act came into force have committed serious offencesthose are the low-profile cases that I mentioned earlier.
	Members of this House may recall the successful extradition from the US of Mark and Sean Gorman, who were wanted in this country for a savage hammer attack that left a man with permanent brain damage. They were apprehended in New York, subsequently extradited and are now serving seven years and five years respectively for their horrific crime. Another low-profile case was that of Calvin Berry, who was extradited from the US and jailed for 10 years for the manslaughter and robbery of a teenage girl. Hon. Members may also be interested to know that since 2004, 10 people have been extradited from the US on suspicion of murder, manslaughter or attempted murder, six have been extradited for sexual offences, including one case of gross indecency with a child, and two have been extradited for kidnap and child abduction. So there is no question of this being one-way traffic.
	Let us move on to the high profile cases that the Opposition say are bringing the 2003 Act into disrepute. The motion, for understandable reasons, does not specifically mention which cases those are, but one of them, as we have discussed, must be that of the so-called NatWest three, whose extradition was vigorously opposed by many Opposition Members. That was despite the fact that there was reasonable suspicion of their involvement in a major case of fraud, which, in turn, played a role in the Enron scandal that deprived 21,000 people of their jobs and many more of their pensions and life savings.
	I was at the Department of Trade and Industry at the time of the NatWest three marches and protests, so I recall that, as in the other current case to which I assume the motion refers, it was claimed that the NatWest three should be tried on British soil. The High Court was clear on this matter: the case had substantial connections with the United States and could properly be tried there. It was claimed by those campaigning against extradition that the NatWest three would be denied bail and would spend two years in a maximum-security prisonthey were, in fact, granted bail and the trial was delayed only at their instigation. When it was tried in November 2007, they pleaded guilty to fraud and were each sentenced to 37 months. Following short periods spent in US prisons, they are now serving the remainder of their sentences in the UK. I understand how the public become involved in high-profile cases, but it is difficult to understand how cases are not reported so accurately when they go from being high profile to low profile and how the actual experience of the NatWest three can be left completely out of the argument now raging about Gary McKinnon.

Menzies Campbell: If the Home Secretary is interested in the experience of the NatWest three, who include Mr. Gary Mulgrew, he should consult his fellow Labour party member, Mrs. Trish Godman, who is an MSP and the mother of Mr. Mulgrew. I have kept in touch with her, as I did with Mr. Mulgrew during his imprisonment. She has made it clear, as indeed has he, that such was the nature of the prosecution and the implied threat behind it that he was compelled to accept a plea bargainthat is not unusual in the United States, where prosecutors traditionally load the prosecution in the hope of encouraging accused persons to try to do the best they can by offering a plea to a reduced charge. If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to deal with that matter, he should be more aware of the circumstances before he seeks to draw inferences from it.

Alan Johnson: I am sorry, but I do not take it from that intervention that Mr. Mulgrew was innocent. I take things from the action of the courts and what has happened through the courts. Of course all kinds of people are involved emotionally in these incidents, but the majesty of the law must come above that. I am pointing out that for all the campaigning and hyperbola about the NatWest three, they were treated fairly in the American courts and were brought back to serve their sentences in the UK, so I can hardly see how the case brought the 2003 Act into disreputeit might have brought a lot of other things into disrepute, but not the 2003 Act.

Alan Johnson: That was a blast of common sense, which is not unusual from my right hon. Friend.
	The second case that the motion no doubt refers to is ongoing and is subject to judicial reviewI should say reviews, because there are twoso I shall not comment on the detail, but I wish to set out clearly for the House and, in particular, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), how the process works. The 2003 Act places the vast majority of matters relating to extradition procedures in the hands of the judiciary and deliberately limits the role or influence that politicians or others could bring to bear on extradition cases. That is important and right, because it removes the possibility that any extradition case could be influenced for political reasons or determined on the basis of prejudicial influences.

Alan Johnson: I am going to make progress. On the question of prosecution, as I made clear to the House, only the Director of Public Prosecutions can make such a decision, and that includes deciding in which country the prosecution should be brought. In practice, under the 2003 Act, the extradition process works as follows. First, the case for extradition is submitted to the Home Office by prosecutors from another country and is then referred to the magistrates court. The magistrates court must consider whether there are grounds for the issuing of an arrest warrantand whether there are any barriers, as they are termed, to itwhich means that there must be reasonable suspicion that the subject in question has committed the offence. An arrest warrant is then issued to the police following that procedure, if no barriers were foundno barriers were found in the case of Gary McKinnon. The case is then heard in the magistrates court, and the court must decide whether or not there are any grounds that bar the extraditionfor example, whether the individual in question has already been tried and cleared of the offence for which they are to be extradited, which is known as double jeopardy, or whether the extradition would be a breach of that person's human rights under human rights legislation, which Opposition Members seem to find so difficult at times.
	Once the court is satisfied that there are no grounds that bar extradition, the case comes to the Home Office and the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is then legally obliged to order that person's extradition, except in three specific circumstances set out in law: where it is possible that the person who is to be extradited could be sentenced to death if convicted; where there are inadequate arrangements in place in that country to prevent someone's being also charged with an offence that was committed prior to extradition and not included in the request that led to their extradition; and where the person who is to be extradited was previously extradited to the UK from another country and that country has not consented to any further extradition. If none of these circumstances apply, the Home Secretary must order extradition.

Chris Grayling: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House why three years ago, in primary legislation, this Government gave the Home Secretary greater powers to intervene in such matters, butup to this timethe Government have not implemented the provisions of that legislation?

David Burrowes: The Home Secretary mentioned my constituent, Gary McKinnon. Is it not the case that the public loses confidence when the doors of No. 10 are flung open for petitions to be accepted and tears of concern to be shed for his plight, but at the same time the Government and the Home Secretary have shut the door on considering his vulnerabilityhe has Asperger's syndromeand the widespread concerns about his case? The Home Secretary has himself accepted the need for proper consideration when a significant part of an offence was committed in this country and where the interests of justice may be served best by the case being heard here

Alan Johnson: I understand that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) is intimately involved in his constituent's case, but I assure him that the safeguards are in the 2003 Act. I have no problem with campaigns, whether by newspapers or others, because that is a healthy part of our democracy, but we have to act in accordance with the law, which provides safeguards in this case. We have gone through the process whereby the magistrates court has decided that there are no reasons and has sent the case to the Home Secretary. I have three specific points to judge such cases on, none of which applied in this case.
	The individual can then appeal against the decision of the magistrates court and the Home Secretary in the High Court. If their appeal fails, they can appeal it in the other place. If that fails, there is then a legal duty on the UK Government to extradite the individual within 28 days. But within that time, the person in question can also refer their case to the European Court of Human Rights, which will look at whether the extradition would breach that person's human rights. If the court rules that an extradition would not breach their rights, the UK is legally obliged to continue with the extradition. So there are safeguards at every single stage.
	Following these failed appeals, only if powerful and compelling evidence comes to light that demonstrates clearly that the extradition would breach our obligations under the European convention on human rightsfor example, a life-threatening illnesscan the Home Secretary halt the extradition. In doing so, he or she must apply strict legal tests to determine whether the new information about the subject's mental or physical health would mean that their human rights would be breached should the extradition continue. If the case does not meet that test, they cannot halt the extradition, although their decision not to do so can be challenged in the courts.
	Before I move to what might laughably be called a peroration, I assume that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was referring to the forum bar to extradition that the Opposition wish to introduce. That is not a power for the Home Secretary to intervene, but for the court to intervene. Even if the case for a forum bar is accepted, there is an existing mechanism by which the Opposition can seek to introduce forum as a bar to extradition without the need for any amendment. During the passage of the Police and Justice Act 2006, the Opposition successfully pressed for the insertion of provisions that would force the Government to commence proceedings on a bar to extradition, if a resolution to that effect had been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
	I think that the system is fair. There can be no doubt that the 2003 Act has been beneficial in enabling the UK legal system to bring to account criminals who have either committed grave harm to individuals or threatened the interests of this country. It also enables us to fulfil our international obligations more expediently. In doing so, it provides greater safeguards and greater clarity to those subject to extradition proceedings. I commend the amendment to the House.

Christopher Huhne: I welcome the Opposition's motion on the Extradition Act 2003. This is a timely and important debate. Every few months, an extradition case hits the headlines, including most recently the case of Gary McKinnon, which is still sub judice while judicial review proceeds. Before that, as the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) have pointed out, there were the NatWest three. These repeated causes clbres underline the problems with our extradition arrangements. They underline the injustice of the unequal treaty that we have signed with the United States, and they will go on and on until that treaty is amended to put American and British citizens on an equal footing.
	I am astonished by the Home Secretary's new doctrine, which no previous Minister has advancedperhaps we could call it the Johnson doctrinethat there is an equality of treatment. In the past, Ministers have confessed that there is no equality of treatment, but they have justified that on other grounds. The reality isthis is the key point, which the Home Secretary confirmedthat we have to show fact if we want to extradite from the US, and that is not the case for the other way around. For any Government to agree that our citizens should be treated as second-class citizens is an outrage and demands correction.
	That is why the Conservative motion does not go far enough. It calls for a review of the Extradition Act 2003, without signalling the problems and highlighting the unjust arrangements contained in the US-UK extradition treaty. The Extradition Act has good and bad parts. Let me start with the good. We like its enabling of the European arrest warrant, a sensible measure for the easyJet age, that has brought back more than 300 dangerous criminalsincluding rapists, murderers, paedophiles and drug runnersto face British justice. That, sadly, is what the Conservatives seem to dislike: because the EAW is European, they oppose it even though it tackles crime and locks up dangerous people. Judge parties by what they do, not what they say.
	Exactly the same applies to the Conservatives' decision to withdraw from the European People's party. If the Conservatives cared more about gay rights or action against climate change, they would hardly have leapt into bed with parties that oppose those things.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that point. I was hoping that he would make a full tribute at the Dispatch Box to his colleague, Edward McMillan-Scott, for the service that he has performed for the Conservative party over the years. Sadly, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not do so. I regret that. On his substantive point, however, let us be clear that there are within the justice and home affairs chapters of the treaties very substantial ways in which member states can raise their concerns about other member states' justice systems, if that is required.
	Let us also remember that every member of the European Union that is subject to the European arrest warrant is also a signatory of the European convention on human rights, and, by the wayI should explain for the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman's partyis also prepared to have the European convention applied in their domestic law. His proposals to fail to do that would be an astonishing break with what is happening elsewhere. The points that he is raising are therefore much less significant than the enormous benefits that we have derived from the European arrest warrant.
	I have raised issues myself. For example, I did not approve of the German application to extradite Dr. Toben for the crime of holocaust denial, which we do not recognise in British justice. I merely point out to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that other member statessuch as Belgiumhave decided that there is room for interpretation on this. The European arrest warrant is a perfectly workable instrument as it is, and although it should perhaps be improved it has certainly done an enormous amount to help crack down on crime in this country and to help crack down on the old costa del crime. I am astonished that the Conservative party, which was once known as the party of law and order, should have become so obsessed with its Europhobia as to turn its face against this very sensible set of measures [ Interruption. ] I am glad to see that I have some support from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who, sadly, is on the Back Benches and no longer speaks for his party on these matters.

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I could not let pass that reference to what was a highly contentious piece of legislation because at the heart of it was a mutual recognition of the legal systems of other countries. There were big queries about the role of investigating justices who can hold British citizens in prison for many months in ItalyGreece was another nation suspected of thiswithout proof or clear evidential reasons for doing so. Mutual recognition of the quality of the legal system was central to the arguments that took place during the debate on this subject.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I have a certain amount of sympathy with it. I would merely go back to the point that I was making in my exchange with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, which was that this is a process, not a snapshot. It is a process by which we hope not merely to entrench the democratic values and democracies in central and eastern Europe and other member states that have not had the benefit of our traditions for quite as long as we have, but also to entrench their commitment to the rule of law and to fair standards of justice. That process, it seems to me, is one of which we can avail ourselves.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman has a point. I said that I was sympathetic on that point, and I certainly think that there are examplesnot just of British citizens, as the case of Dr. Tobin involved an Australian national who happened to be arrested at a British airportof cases in which we should stand up against such injustices. We should continue to do so.
	The objectionable part of the Extradition Act was the ability to shoehorn through this place a treaty with the United States that was never scrutinised here, never voted on, and would never have received this House's approval if its unequal provisions had been made clear, but was introduced through the royal prerogative. We have therefore tabled an amendment calling for the US-UK extradition treaty to be placed
	on a basis of full reciprocity.
	That is in line with our opposition to the initial ratification of the treaty in 2003. The amendment has not been selected, but it is on the Order Paper for everyone to see.
	We take particular issue with section 69 of the Extradition Act, because it designates category 2 countries, and the statutory instruments that gave the US-UK treaty effect stem from it. The treaty, as I have already mentioned, was sneaked in by the Government without debate or consultation. Even the text of the treaty was a closely guarded secret, for it was not made public until May 2003two months after its initial signing, when MPs were leaving for the Whitsun recess. The manner of the treaty's approval and implementation illustrates abundantly the disregard that the Executive has for this legislature. There are few better examples of this place being found on its knees, prostrate before Government power.

Christopher Huhne: I hope that that is an offer from the Labour Benches to increase the number of Liberal Democrat Supply days. I will take the right hon. Gentleman up on that, and I look forward to his joining us on delegations to the Leader of the House to press that point. We use many ways of making our opposition clear; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife, in particular, has been extremely active in this regard. Indeed, in one occasion he even appeared before a Committee of which he was not a member in order to make our opposition clear. I do not think that anybody can be in any doubt. At least the right hon. Friend of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the Home Secretary, has paid tribute to our consistency, although sadly he has not yet been persuaded of the fact that we are right.

Richard Shepherd: To be traduced in such a way by that former Minister for Europethe right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)is outrageous. Of course we are missing the essential debates on these matters. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is right to have mentioned the treaty provisions in 2003, the discussions on which took place during the passage of the Police and Justice Bill of the 2005-06 Session. That was when that matter was thoroughly thrashed out. That was when the Liberal Democrats led, with Conservatives, in the Lords to bring down that unequal treaty. That is fully on the record. The Home Secretary says that something has been added to the 2003 legislation, and does not acknowledge the fierceness of the debates when rough equivalence, and so on, appeared. He should get his people in the Box to do some work.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support on that point. What is most startling is the fact that the Labour Government signed away one of our basic freedomsthe right to a fair trialwith that unbalanced agreement. The fact that we signed the treaty unilaterally is more evidence of its lopsided nature and the Blair Government's blind faith in, and service to, the United States. Although our Government were eager to shackle themselves to the document, the United States did not even bother to ratify the US-UK extradition treaty until 2006, even though for three years we were applying its provisions.

Dominic Grieve: The point has been made about the nature of reciprocity. The hon. Gentleman might also be aware that under the terms of the US-UK extradition agreement, in the United States the definition of the political offence is left to the executive branch to determine, whereas in this country it is determined by the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman might think that that raises some continuing concerns about how that might be applied in practice.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes another point about the unbalanced nature of the treaty. I say advisedly that it is an unequal treaty, and I am taking account of the historical context. It is the sort of treaty that one normally sees between an imperial power and a satellite and, frankly, I find it astonishing that any British Government should have agreed to it. I am at a loss to know why David Blunkett, who was then the Home Secretary, bound the UK to an arrangement

Christopher Huhne: The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), agreed and bound the UK to an arrangement that lacks reciprocity and places higher burdens on UK requests than on those from the US. What was the justification? We have not seen any here. What was the purpose? Perhaps a more fitting question is, What was the incentive? There has been no clear answerexcept for the rather novel doctrine that denies the existence of any imbalance. I note, however, that in expressing that view, the Home Secretary signally failed to make a commitment to place his legal advice in the Library of the House, although I challenged him to do so.
	Let us be clear about what the treaty does. Article 8 removes the requirement for the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting extradition from the UK, yet article 8, section 3, subsection (c) still requires the UK authorities to provide the US with a reasonable basis to believe that the US national whom they are seeking to extradite committed the offence. The key point is precisely the one that the Home Secretary made about facts: it is simply ludicrous that this Government are prepared to afford our American counterparts greater protection than they do our own citizens.
	In the past, of course, the Government have said that the Americans have the small matter of their own constitution, which insists on probable cause and constrains what they can do. Quite. The US constitution is one of the finest pieces of liberal drafting in legal history. US citizens have enormous advantages over British citizens in the guarantees of freedoms and the checks and balances on arbitrary state power that the US constitution affords, but that is not an argument for ditching our safeguards, weak and feeble though they are in comparison. It is surely an argument that Ministers should have taken even more care to defend UK citizens' rights, precisely because we do not benefit from a written constitution.
	This is a practical and a moral issue. Even when it comes to extradition to a state where the death penalty exists, we did not see fit to impose an absolute refusal on our duty to extraditeeven to Texas, where the death penalty is rife, or, in the past, to Illinois, where a retiring governor was so distraught by the evidence that he had sent so many innocent men to execution that he pardoned everyone on death row.

Alan Johnson: rose

Christopher Huhne: My understanding is that the treaty says that we may refuse.
	Once extradited, British citizens are unlikely to receive bail while they wait for trial because they are seen as a flight risk, which means that they can spend a substantial period pre-trial in prison. I am also informed that many of those extradited will come under extraordinary pressure to plead guilty to minor charges in order to escape a long trial and extended pre-trial detention on major charges. Where is the justice in that? Where are the protections for our citizens? If the Home Secretary regards that practice as fair in a system of justice, why have he and his predecessors refused to introduce it in British justice? It seems to me that he has a real case to answer.
	Given all the evidence against the fairness and equality of the treaty and the motion that we are debating here today, it is perhaps surprising that the Conservatives did not oppose the treaty at the time. We did not receive support from the Conservatives when we attempted to secure the withdrawal of the name of the US from the offending statutory instrument in the other place in December 2003. Instead, the Conservatives put their
	trust in the judicial system of our closest ally[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1068.],
	largely abstaining in the votes both in the other place and in this House, with some honourable exceptions among their Back Benchers. I can only assume that the Conservatives no longer have such trust in our ally, given what they have been saying about certain cases in recent weeks. What we have here smacks just a little of Conservative opportunism. Because the  Daily Mail has, quite rightly, taken up case of Gary McKinnonI pay tribute to that newspaper's campaigning zealthe Conservative Front Benchers have snapped to attention. General Dacre's wish is Lieutenant's Grayling's command.
	The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the extradition arrangements with America. We spoke and voted against the orders implementing our end of the treaty in December 2003. In 2006 we tabled a Bill to restore the need for prime facie evidence to be provided by US authorities when requesting extradition. More recently, we made a pledge in our freedom Bill to ensure that the treaty is redrafted immediately. We did all that because we believe the Extradition Act 2003 is manifestly unfair to British citizens and those who have been caught up by the treaty, such as Gary McKinnon.
	The Government need to renegotiate the treaty immediately and make the extradition test reciprocal. They should also introduce proper parliamentary scrutiny of treaties and amend the royal prerogative so that such an arrangement can no longer be entered into without meaningful reference to Parliament. That is the least they can do. We will back the Conservative motion today, even though we would prefer more detail and more commitment. We welcome damascene conversions to good causes, and we only hope that our new allies in this matter are not fair-weather friends of the freedoms that British citizens should enjoy.

David Burrowes: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). I am not a recent convert to the cause of Gary McKinnon: he is my constituent and I have been campaigning for him for three years. I welcome the support for Gary McKinnon from the Liberal Democrats and Members of other parties. Mr. McKinnon's case brings into sharp relief the problems caused by the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 and the treaty.
	I shall respect Mr. Speaker's direction and not base my remarks wholly on the case of Gary McKinnon. However, it is important to recognise that Mr. Speaker's direction on sub judice matters relates to the challenge to the DPP's decision not to prosecute, as opposed to the challenge to the decision on whether the Home Secretary should have taken account of Mr. McKinnon's condition of Asperger's syndrome, which on its own the House would have been free to debate fully.
	I was worried to hear the Home Secretary trying to pick and mix justifications for the operation of the extradition treaty. We thought that we had moved on from a Home Secretary who trumpets the Government's terrorism-fighting credentials and focuses only on terrorists whom we all want to be prosecuted and extradited. We thought that we had moved on from a Home Secretary who only talks about fighting on behalf of the innocent. What we are all concerned about is justicejustice for the innocent and for the guilty. That is as important for Gary McKinnon, who has not sought to hide his guilt, as for anyone else. We are concerned about proper due process.
	One would have thought that the Home Secretary had learned from his predecessors' mistakes. One of themthe right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)has come on board and acknowledged the deficiencies of the 2003 Act, of which he was very much an architect, as it affects Gary McKinnon. During the passage of the Bill in 2003, no one in his right mind would have used as the centrepiece of his argument the case of Gary McKinnonsomeone who has the severe autistic condition of Asperger's syndrome and is now the subject of this unbalanced process.
	I do not propose to go into the details of Gary McKinnon's case today; nor will I attempt to defend his actionsI doubt that any hon. Member would do so. What I want to do is defend Mr. McKinnon's right to justice and that of others who become victims of the 2003 Act and the treaty. The Home Secretary talked about causes clbres, but Gary McKinnon is the last person whom one would promote as a cause clbre. He shuns publicity in many ways: his condition makes him introverted and he shies away from communicating. He needs others to speak up on his behalf. I am pleased to do that as his Member of Parliament, and others have also done so. I commend the  Daily Mail for the momentum it has given to the campaign .
	It is important to recognise that this is a matter of justice. I have an interest in having practised as a criminal solicitor for 11 years. I and others who have practised in the justice system recognise that although it is not perfect, it is marked by an historical determination to provide fair trial for defendants. Whatever we think of them as individuals, or whatever the community or any state thinks of them, they all have a right to a fair trial. Regrettably, those who do not fit in with the systemthose who are vulnerable or mentally ill, or who have special needsoften cannot get justice, although they deserve it as much as anyone else.
	The Home Secretary talked about safeguards. Those safeguards are plainly not in place. Whether we are dealing with one case or a number of cases, and whether we call them high profile or low profile, there needs to be justice and appropriate safeguards for all. That was not the case for Gary McKinnon, who was diagnosed late with Asperger's syndrome, and it is not the case for anyone else like him who has symptoms of compulsive behaviour, not communicating well, and not seeking to make the case for themselves.

David Burrowes: It was made in August 2008. Decisions on Gary McKinnon and others in his position are subject to the Secretary of State's discretion and to the European convention on human rights. It is for the Secretary of State to determine whether that discretion should be applied in the case of those with Gary McKinnon's condition. It has been argued that it should be applied in Gary McKinnon's case, as in others, but the Secretary of State has chosen to ignore that. Although there have been concerns expressed by No. 10, it has chosen to ignore Gary McKinnon's particular condition.
	The McKinnon case and others show the problems that occur when there is a challenge of the process. Gary McKinnon and others are left to look to the Home Secretary or the Director of Public Prosecutions for relief. The Home Secretary is saying, I don't have to consider forum, because that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the DPP is saying, We've decided to cede jurisdiction to the United States. That leaves any appellant, defendant, or whatever one calls them, to challenge via judicial review a DPP decision not to prosecute in this country, and to challenge the Home Secretary's decision, toothat is the case for Gary McKinnon. As should be clear to the Home Secretary, that shows the plain need for forum to be properly determined. It should not be left to applicants to mount a campaign, find legal advice and representation, and go through all the complicated procedures on the judicial review route. It clearly shows the need for proper consideration of forum, and the lack of consideration of forum in the current process.
	I pay tributeas others have done, both previously and todayto the work of the late Lord Kingsland, who will be sadly missed in the other place. Part of his legacy is an amendment that he supported, together with Baroness Hanham, to the Policing and Crime Bill. That amendment would deal with many of our concerns. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the old schedule 13 to that Bill deal properly with two issues. The first is the issue of evidence and the conditions relating to whether a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence was conducted in the United Kingdom. The second issue relates to whether an extradition would be barred if, in view of all the circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.
	On the issue of the interests of justice, such a provision would allow the court properly to consider the applicant before them. In the case of Gary McKinnon or others like him, it could consider the fact that the applicant was severely autistic, and could consider the implications of that, not only for the defendant's understanding of the crime that they are alleged to have committed, but particularly with regard to the impact of the extradition process, the impact of the process taking place in another place such as the United States, and the impact of the sentence. The sentence would have a profound effect on people such as Gary McKinnon, particularly given the length of sentence proposed; it is judged that it could be up to 60 years. The provision would also allow bail to be considered carefully.
	The example was given of the NatWest three, but that was an exceptional case, and should not be brought forward as a precedentcertainly not as regards bailwhen we are talking about cases such as that of Gary McKinnon, who is penniless. The question of adequate representation would be a key factor in America. Also, the question of whether there was confidence that the defendant would get bail, rather than be in custody before trial, perhaps for two years, would be relevant if we considered forum properly in this country.
	The same is true of consideration of repatriation after sentence. Again, we heard the example of the NatWest three, in which repatriation took place after conviction. However, in the case of Gary McKinnon, there has been no assurance that that would happen, despite the fact that other countries have agreements with the United States on that subject. The Netherlands and Israel have, on behalf of all their citizens, come to an agreement, whereby their Home Secretaries would give a specific assurance before extradition that, on conviction, the person would be repatriated to serve their sentence in their country. Gary McKinnon does not have the benefit of that assurance, and nor do other citizens of this country, because the Government have not properly negotiated on behalf of their citizens to allow for due process and justice.
	Prima facie evidence will not be considered; that point has already been debated today, and on other occasions. The Government ceded the part of the Extradition Act 2003 that has that requirement in ita requirement to provide sufficient evidence to make a case. That requirement has been a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system, but the Government gave it away; the treaty makes a point of removing that requirement. That has had a crucial effect, but it would in many ways be remedied by the forum position, because consideration of forum would enable consideration of whether the offence or a significant part of the offence had been committed in this country. Currently, in cases such as that of Gary McKinnon, prosecutors do not have the evidence before them to enable them to come to a judgment, because the United States has it for its own purposes. The authorities in this country have only a partial picture on which to make a judgment. If the court had forum provisions, it could give proper consideration to whether a significant part of the offences and the criminality took place in this country, and could then form a judgment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has given clear examples of other cases of cyber-attacks that led to prosecutions in this countrycases in which the evidence was before this country. There were the cases of Richard Pryce and Mathew Bevan, which came before Bow Street magistrates court. Charges were laid under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and Pryce was convicted. As we have heard, he received a 1,200 fine. In the case of Bevan, no prosecution was brought forward in the public interest.
	It is significant to hear what was said by Bevan:
	I was bullied at school and I found my little community and interaction through my computer...The hackers would all egg each other on. There wasn't anything malicious about it. If there was, I could have downed as many computer systems as I wanted. I was just really looking for anything about UFOs.
	That is a similar situation to that of Gary McKinnon. What is different is that PryceBevan was not prosecutedwas prosecuted in this country. That is not the case for Gary McKinnon.
	The cases of Andrew Harvey and Jordan Bradley involved the spread of a global worm, which had a significant impact on the United States and Britain. Harvey received a six-month sentence, which was later reduced to two months, and Bradley received a three-month sentence. Significantly, in that case, there were conspirators in the United States. There was a direct connection with those committing offences in the United States, but Harvey and Bradley were dealt with in this country.
	Without those reforming provisions, we are left at the behest of America. I do not wish to criticise America; it has managed to negotiate its part of the bargain. The problem is that this country has not done so. We have clearly ceded to America, and the Government need to own up to that. The Government amendment to the motion suggests that the tests that are applied
	are broadly equivalent given the differences between the legal systems in the two jurisdictions.
	That is certainly at odds with what the Attorney-General said in debate on the Extradition Bill, as we have heard; I will not repeat her words. There is certainly a difference between the Attorney-General's recognising the imbalance in the extradition procedures and the Government's seeking to spin the line that the tests are broadly equivalent. That must change, in the interests of Gary McKinnon and others, so that there is proper justice.
	I believe that in many ways the Home Office has a split personality. A week or so ago, it launched its cyber-strategy because it wanted to recruit computer hackers who could be of use to the Government. Lord West talked about naughty boys and, although I am not sure that Gary McKinnon would come under that definition, perhaps the Government should employ him. That would be better than letting him go off to serve a sentence in America, where he says that his prospects of survival are dim.
	I want to conclude by saying that I very much stand up for justice for Gary McKinnon, who has become a victim of an unfair treaty. However, it is not just about him: people before him have suffered, and others will in future. The Government must do more than just shed tears when a petition arrives at No. 10. They must act to stop this extradition, and review this unfair Act.

John Gummer: I am sorry that he is not here, but I have to say that I was deeply disappointed by the new Home Secretary's performance. I had thought that he was a man whose natural common sense would have led him to come to the House with a recognition of the seriousness of the issue before us. Instead, he flatly refused to accept that the Attorney-General had given advice that was wholly contrary to what he asserted again and again. He prayed in aid the fact that he was not very brightthat, because he is not a lawyer, we ought to take his view of the law rather than that of the Law Officer herself. The Home Secretary went on to say that the Attorney-General was anyway not a Law Officer when she gave the advice, but a Home Office Minister. It is not good enough for him to come to the House and propose to begin his answer to a serious and polite debate in that way.
	That is my first concern, but things got worse. Secondly, the Home Secretary went on to admit that he did not have the key figures that he was asked for in connection with the numbers of people extradited from the US to Britain, and the circumstances of each case. He had only the figures that suited his case: he had none of the other figures for which he was asked.
	Thirdly, the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman asked the Home Secretary to put his advice in the Library, and he did not even have the courtesy to reply. The spokesman had to intervene again, yet he still did not get a response. Not only did the Home Secretary come to the debate unprepared; he came believing that hectoring and rudeness were suitable responses to what is a serious issue for many people around the country.
	Fourthly, the Home Secretary was asked a direct question about the implications of the extra powers that the Government had assumed, and he did not know the answer. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman must be moonlighting, because he did not prepare for a debate in this House about a serious issue that many people have pressed repeatedly.
	I know that the Liberal Democrats tend to tease people on matters like this, but they cannot tease me on this one. I have been concerned about it from the beginning, as a result of my experience of the US judicial system. I had a constituent who was an American citizen and who was on death row in Texas for more than 20 years. I went there to plead for his life, and I will repeat what a senior law officer of the state of Texas told me. He said, Your ex-constituent may be innocent, but he is not a nice man and I don't want him on my streets. That's why he is going to be executed. Those were the words not of some gash prosecution lawyer, but of an official of the Texas court.
	Many of us are not happy with how the system works in many American states. Of course it is true that this Government have interpreted the agreement to mean that they will not extradite people who might be subject to the death penalty, but my example illustrates that the American system of justice is not the same as the one in this countryor, dare I say it, in the rest of the EU. We are governed by the European convention on human rights, so it is reasonable to say that people have a right to be concerned when extradition to the US is raised as a possibility.

John Gummer: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. That is one of the three things that I am concerned about. First, I am concerned about the concept in many parts of the US that the real purpose of the law is to get off the streets people with whom the law does not hold. Secondly, I am concerned that the punishment is therefore very often out of line with anything that we in Europe would think acceptable. My third concern has to do with the concept of plea bargaining. People in Europe think that those who plead guilty are in fact guilty, whereas in many cases they plead guilty merely because the alternative is very much more serious. Such people will have learned from their lawyers that, especially for those who are not American, to stand out is to risk very long prison sentences indeed.
	I see complacent smiles on the faces of the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but as far as British justice is concerned, it is not good enough for them not to take seriously the fact that we are in this House above all to defend the freedom of the people of Britain. I want to ask the fundamental question: what were the Government doing signing a treaty that was not reciprocated? On what possible basis could they have done so?
	I have real worries about the nature of the treaty anyway, but it cannot be fair to sign a treaty when one side has a higher degree of proof requirement than the other. I would rather take the tutored views of the noble Baroness Scotland than the admittedly untutored andas far as I understand itlargely unprepared views of the Home Secretary. I want also to say a word about the European warrant.

John Gummer: One of the joys of being on the Back Benches is that I did not have to agree with that view in the first place. I therefore do not have a problem, although I would not have agreed with that remark even if I had been on the Front Bench. However, there is a thing called learning, and it means that our practical experience of the Extradition Act leads us to say that it needs to be looked at again.
	Before I finish, I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that this matter does relate to the European treaty. We belong to a Communitya Union that we supportwhose members seek to operate together. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to have a mechanism that shortens the period needed for extraditing a person from one member country to another. I have no difficulty in accepting that. I have been through the list and do not see any cases that disturb me, except those where one country's law is wholly different from another's on a particular point. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and others were right to draw attention, for example, to the question of holocaust denial. One can understand precisely why there is a law on it in Germany, but why there might not be somewhere else. That is a perfectly reasonable judgment to make, and we need to have a mechanism to overcome it, but in general there is no problem with the European arrest warrant. That has been proven by the period that has elapsed. What has not been proven is that there is no problem with the British-American agreement, and I wish to end on that. The problem with the agreement is that it leads people in Britain to believe that this country will do anything that the United States asks, without being prepared to stand up for its own people.

David Winnick: I was at a Home Affairs Committee meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), which is the reason why I have not been present for the entire debate.
	Is there not a danger that the situation creates anti-US feelinga prejudice? Many people who would not otherwise be, or have no reason to be, prejudiced against the United States will now be rather anti-American for the reasons that we are debating.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has pre-stated what I was going to say. As somebody who is not anti-American but believes strongly in the relationship between Europe and United States, I do not want issues to get in the way which suggest that it is proper to refer to the relationship as imperialsomething that the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, mentioned. We need to make it clear to the United States that we are partners not subjects. There is a constant refrain. We are told, America cannot do this because of the constitution, but we have to do something. The business about ratification is universal. America still has not ratified the convention on international trade in endangered species, which it has signed. It has not done so because it does not think that partnership requires reciprocity.
	I say to the Government that the reason why I feel so passionately about the issue is not just that I want to defend the human rights and freedom of my constituents and of the people of Britain, but that we need to bring it home to our American partners that they must treat the rest of the world as they expect the rest of the world to treat them. Reciprocity is a serious issue, not one that can be covered up by an argument between the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General about the precise details of what the wording under discussion means.
	I finish where I began. As the Home Secretary is not present, I hope that the Minister will take this point back to him: the Home Secretary's chatty, jokey little comments at the beginning of the debate demeaned him. He is the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. He is not here to perform second-rate, school-debating tricks on a serious matter that concerns people's freedoms; he is here to uphold the most ancient rights of a nation of which he is fortunate enoughfor what will be a very short timeto be Home Secretary.

Denis MacShane: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), this time after his philippic about schoolboy debating techniques. I remember as a student at Oxford university attending perhaps my only Oxford Union debate. The right hon. Gentleman came in to represent the Conservative cause, as a former president of the Cambridge Union, and exactly the same vim, vigour, vivid metaphor and utter wrongheadedness that we sometimes hear today were on display all those years ago.
	One paradox of the debate is that many of those who have spoken are convinced pro-Europeans, and part of the debate is about the application of international rule of law. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made for his constituent a very moving and compelling plea that does him and the cause honour. The hon. Gentleman said that he spent many years as a solicitor practising in criminal law, and were I ever to find myself in trouble I should be delighted, after that excellent speech, to have him defend me.
	However, I was slightly alarmed when I heard that the gentlemanwho is not mentioned in the motion but about whom we are talking and the  Daily Mail is campaigningwas diagnosed with his distressing condition only last year. One gets a slight hint of the famous Ernest Saunders defence: he said that he was suffering from Alzheimer's to get off a criminal prosecution, but the moment that he was out of court, he somehow skipped off and his memory came back with marvellous vigour.
	It is quite important that we read into the record article 94 of the treaty, on the death penalty. I was astonished that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) had not read the treaty. Article 94 states:
	The Secretary of State must not order a person's extradition...if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence concerned.

Dominic Grieve: rose

Denis MacShane: We do not have much time. I am concerned that we should not send a signal to all our friends in America that one newspaper and one very hard cause will overturn the need to speed up extraditions between our two countries.
	A case comes to mind; it does not concern my constituents, thank goodness, but it is of great concern in Yorkshire. It involves Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle. I doubt whether Members know those names, because this grave case has been given absolutely no national publicity. Last year, those two gentlemen were convicted at Leeds Crown court of publishing anti-Semitic and racist material on the web, including pictures showing Jews being cruelly disfigured. There were up to 4,000 hits a day. They also published a book called the Tales of the Holohoaxwe get the sense of what they were trying to argueand they sent it to synagogues.
	The men were arrested, fairly tried and convicted, but they jumped bail and fled to the United States. In Los Angeles, they claimed that they should be allowed to stay in America under the provisions of the first amendment to the US constitution which gives the absolute right to free speech. Had they been Americans and published the material in America, they could not have been prosecuted. One of the big problems for those of us who campaign against anti-Semitism and racism on the net is that the United States cannot take any control of the internet service providers.
	I am glad to say that, having examined the case and heard the powerful plea that the men should be allowed to stay in America under the provisions of American law, the courts in Los Angeles said no. They said that the men were British citizens who had committed a crime in Britain and should be sent back. Last Friday, Whittle and Sheppard were sent to jailfor three and four years respectively, I think. That was an important victory in the fight against anti-Semitism, but it could not have been won without the willingness of the Americans to rise above their own constitution and free speech amendment and co-operate with us.
	There is the similar case of Mr. Hussain Osman, who was one of the gentlemen involved in the 7/7 outrages. He fled to Italy and asked to be defended from British justice, which he said was unfair. The hon. Member for Eastleigh, who is not in his place, referred to the Council of Europe's observations about the justice systems in other countries. I serve on the Council of Europe and know something about it; its observations on aspects of British justice and police procedures do not always make pretty reading. We should look at motes and beams before becoming contemptuous of the legal, judicial, police and investigating systems in other countries.
	I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) now accepts the European arrest warrant, although with many qualifications. He was not involved in the debates at the time, but when I was Minister for Europe the Conservative party opposed the warrant tooth and nailso did the  Daily Mail and  The Daily Telegraph. If the newspapers opposed to Europe, which are now legitimately campaigning for the constituent of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, and the Conservative party had had their way, there would have been no European arrest warrant and Mr. Osman would still be protected in Rome by civil liberties lawyers.
	We claim to be superior in all regards to all other countries, but let us not forget the case of Rachid Ramda. How many Members know who he was? He was an Algerian Islamist living in London who was arrested as a financier of the Paris Metro bombings of 1995, which were a huge shock in France. There was clear evidence linking him to the attacks. For 10 years, he was protected by our judges. The organisation Liberty said, He can't go back to France. There is no justice therethey'll beat him up and bash him over the head. The lawyers made a fortune defending him. Whitehall defended him. The Conservative Home Secretary at the time, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), accepted those argumentsso, I am sad to say, did a Labour Home Secretary, until my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) became Home Secretary and, in 2005, sent him home. At last, after 10 years of being protected by the British legal system, he had to face his accusers, and the families of the men who died thanks to the money that he was sending over to finance that terrorist plot. He is now serving a life sentence in prison.
	We need an internationalisation of the fight against international criminality, whether it is terrorism, paedophilia, race hate or money laundering. I could not believe the arguments we heard earlierthat the men who were responsible for destroying the lives of scores of thousands of Americans in the Enron swindle were just copping a plea, that they had no real involvement and that they just pleaded guilty because it was a way of getting a slightly lower sentence. When are we going to understand that we need international law to deal with the swindlers, fraudsters and banksters who are destroying the lives of ordinary working people in America, in Europe and across the world?
	We need, if anything, to extend and increase the idea of international arrest warrants and of rapid extraditionsno, not when the death penalty is at stake; I fully accept and understand that. I would be happy if the United States authorities could give some indication about the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, given that there is talk of a 60-year sentence. We heard the same with the NatWest three, but in fact it was not that long. If he stays in this country, I will have no problem with that; we have children, and we defend them as best we can.
	We must understand that every nation has different rules of law. There are different rules of law, evidence and court procedures in Scotland and in England, but that does not mean that we have to have extradition between our two countries. The House and the nation needs to come to terms with the fact that the rule of law no longer has a national flag stamped all over it.
	The message to the people of America is that the House of Commons, and above all the Conservative party, which has moved this motion, have nothing but contempt for American law and the rights of the American people. If the American people feel that a grave crime has allegedlyI stress the word allegedlybeen committed that threatens their national security, then we here, praying in aid the civis Britannicus sum arrogance of Palmerston in the 1860s, can stop justice being done. The Conservatives have been cynical and opportunistic in tabling this motion; the Liberal Democrats, as ever, have been Liberal Democrats.

Richard Shepherd: I had not thought of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) as a Robespierre of liberty, but I would not look to him to protect me in the face of an extradition order in any other country.
	It is useful that the Home Secretary has come back at this moment, because this all goes back to something that happened long before his time as Home Secretary. In March 2003, while Parliament was discussing the Extradition Act 2003, the then Home Secretary signed a new extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States. The treaty was subsequently published as a Command Paper in May 2003, after the legislation had been enacted. The most significant difference between the new treaty and its predecessor treaty, which was signed in 1972, lay in article 8 of the new treaty, which set out extradition procedures and required documents. The previous treaty required an extradition request to be accompanied by such evidence as would justify the person's committal for trial according to the law of the state from which extradition was sought, including evidence that the person requested was the person to whom the request warrant referred.
	For requests made by the United Kingdom to the United States, the new treaty required such information as would provide a reasonable basis for believing that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition was requestedprobable cause. There is no corresponding requirement for requests made by the United States for extradition from the United Kingdom.
	The 2003 treaty between the UK and the US did not remove the need for the US to provide prima facie evidence at extradition hearings in the UK. That was achieved by the designation order made in this House under the 2003 Act on 17 December 2003. Right up until that order was made, designating what are called part 2 countries, there was a need for the US to provide prima facie reasoning before the courts in this country.
	When the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 was debated in the House of Lords on 16 December 2003, the then Home Office Minister, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, referred to the intended effects of the designation orders being made under the 2003 Act:
	Every country with which we currently have general extradition relations is being redesignated.
	She then turned to what she called
	the thorny issue of the United States,
	saying:
	If this order is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United Kingdom. This is in line with the new bilateral extradition treaty signed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier this year.
	By contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that. The fact is that under the terms of its constitution the United States of America cannot set its evidential standard any lower than 'probable cause'.
	She said of other countries:
	For all of these countries there is no change to the evidential standard which they will have to meet.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1062-1063.]
	That is at the heart of what this is all about. There was no requirement to drop the prima facie rule. It was an act of the Home OfficeGod knows why the Home Secretary was negotiating an extradition treaty when it is normally the function of the Foreign Office, but it was nevertheless done. It was in the designation orders of December 2003 that we changed the whole process, which has given rise to indignation and a sense of injustice.
	All those matters were debated on 11 July 2006, when the Government suffered defeats in the House of Lords on the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Conservative peer, the late and much lamented Lord Kingsland, successfully moved amendments that sought to remove the United States from the designation order under the 2003 Act listing of part 2 territories, which are those not required to provide prima facie evidence when seeking a person's extradition from the UK, and to prevent the Home Secretary from designating the US as such a territory until reciprocal arrangements had been made in respect of the information and evidence required to support an extradition request for a person who had not been convicted. The Government lost in the Lords but set that right by a majority in the Commons. That is at the heart of the debate and the justification for it, and I plea with the Home Secretary to review properly the workings of this dire mechanism.

Keith Vaz: I will be very brief, because I know that time is short. I begin with an apology. The Select Committee on Home Affairs met earlier, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I were there, so we missed part of the debate.
	I have only three quick things to say. On my way to the debate, I bumped into a previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and asked him whether I could quote what he had said to me about the time when he signed the treaty. He said that I could. He is on record as saying that when the treaty was signed we did not get the best deal, and that frankly the Americans got a better deal than we did. That is why there is a difference between the standard of proof required to get someone over from America and the standard of proof required when the Americans are seeking to get someone from this country.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) for what he has done for his constituent. I appreciate that we are governed by the sub judice rule, though it was waived briefly for the purposes of the debate. I tried earlier to sign the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman tabled about Mr. McKinnon, but it was withdrawn because it was out of order.
	There is a time when the House and, indeed, the public, should be listened to. Of course, some of us went along with the Government on 42 days, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) warned me that the meaning of the slightest word in a Select Committee report could be widened. He was right. In the discussions on the Gurkhas, the Government again lagged behind public opinion and certainly did not take the will of Parliament into account, though as soon as Parliament expressed its view in a vote, they changed their mind.
	This is another occasion when the Government should listen, and I am therefore minded to support the motion. It is a modest motion, which calls for a review of the Extradition Act 2003. It is important that we examine it, now that it has existed for five years, measure what it has achieved and ascertain whether we can improve it. The motion is not against Government policyit would not undermine extradition to a friendly country that is an ally, but it would give us an opportunity to review what has happened, so that cases such as Mr. McKinnon's can be tackled in this country.
	I greatly admire the Home Secretary, who appeared before the Select Committee yesterday. When I put it to him that he had the power to intervene and halt Mr. McKinnon's extradition, he said that he had no power to do that. I think that he has that power and that, if he sought a different set of legal advisers, they would tell him that. Surely the Home Secretary can exercise discretion in the public interest. Mr. McKinnon, who has already admitted to committing an offence, should be tried in this country. I urge, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General to write to the Director of Public Prosecutions and ask that that happens. That is the sensible, pragmatic way in which to deal with the situation, and I hope that the Government will take that course of action.

Dominic Grieve: In the time available, I will try briefly to explain again to the Secretary of State why the motion is sensible. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for indicating his support for it.
	I apologise to my hon. Friends who have made powerful contributions if I do not have time to dwell on each one at length. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), who has so eloquently championed Mr. McKinnon's case.
	Hon. Members of all parties accept that it is desirable for extradition to take place to maintain international justice. Some countries do not have itapart from under the European arrest warrant, France will not extradite its own nationalsbut we have never adhered to that principle, and we do not seek to advocate it.
	In it is inevitable, given that extradition is a human process, that it may contain errors. It is for the Government, in setting out parameters, to try to ensure that those errors are minimised. In adopting the 2003 Act, the Government moved fundamentally away from the previous principle that there would be close scrutiny of each extradition application, from wherever it came. Before that, there was a need to show a prima facie case: the evidence had to be rehearsed in court and the Home Secretary also had administrative powers to prevent miscarriages of justice. I fully accept that, consequently, many extraditions took far too long, and the Home Secretary has my sympathy, because that was an intolerable situation that needed rectifying.
	In adopting the 2003 Act, however, we have moved far too far in the opposite direction. We have extradition on reasonable suspicion, which is no more than a statement of fact, on which it is sufficient to ground an offence. That applies whether it is the United States or any other category 1 or 2 countries. In this country, if a reasonable suspicion is found not to exist, there is at least the remedy that the police officer who came upon the unfounded suspicion can be prosecuted for false arrest and malicious prosecution. No such protection exists once a person has been extradited. We effectively have to take it on trust that the reasonable suspicion exists elsewhere. That is why, to make the precise point, I told the Home Secretary earlier that the problem goes way beyond the United States. In some ways, it is unfair to pillory the United States Government, who have simply taken advantage of the structures that we have put in place. Whether we are talking about that or, desirable as I am sure many of its consequences have been, the European arrest warrant, each has that underlying issue, which merits being revisited.
	We then have to turn to the particular problems that appear to exist in our treaty with the United States and in how it is operated. The point has been made quite forcefully that true reciprocity in the US-UK treaty does not exist. In particular, it does not exist because of the differential standards. There may be good reasons why the Government had to go for those differential standards, but they cannot escape the fact that there are safeguards for a United States national being extradited to this country that do not exist in the opposite direction.
	Secondly, we cannot escape the unfortunate fact, which has been touched on in these debates, that, although nobody would question its desire for fairness, to ensure that only the guilty are convicted, the United States criminal justice system has some onerous aspects to it. That is particularly true in relation to plea bargaining and the astonishing disparity of sentencing between those who have engaged in plea bargaining and those who have not. That gives rise to genuine fears that justice may not be done, because people may be coerced into pleading guilty because they are so frightened of the consequences on conviction, which, particularly for financial offences, most people on this side of the Atlantic would consider to be dramatically disproportionate to anything that would be inflicted in this country.
	To take an example that does not concern extradition, Chantal McCorkle is a lady who received 24 years in prison, which was subsequently reduced to 18, for a fraud on a matter that, if it had come to the courts in this country, would have been unlikely to attract a sentence of more than three or four years in prison. The Government have a particular responsibility in that respect.
	Then there is the fact that the United States prosecutors have been remarkably creative in interpreting the new regime that is in place to expand their jurisdiction. We have discussed and debated the issue of forum. That is because the United States prosecutors are now exercising an almost universal jurisdiction, particularly in the case of offences that may concern the internet, where messages frequently go through servers around the world. That enables them to extradite people to the United States for offences that one could argue were far more closely connected with this country, yet where no decision in this country has been made for prosecution or, indeed, where no complaint has even been made.
	That must inevitably give rise to disquiet about the fact that under the new system individuals, where the prosecutors have decided in this country that there is no possible reason to proceedand where, if they did proceed, those individuals would receive a rather light sentencecan be extradited to the United States, where they are likely to receive a sentence that is drastically and dramatically different from that which they would receive here. The Government cannot escape responsibility on that.
	As an example, in the Morgan Crucible case, which involves my constituent Ian Norris, the United States has sought extradition for an offence and failed, because that offence does not constitute dual criminality, because it was not an offence at the time that it allegedly took place. However, the United States is still seeking extradition on the related matter of obstruction of justice, when, as the law currently stands, there appears to be no safeguard to ensure that, if a trial took place and he were convicted of that offence, he would not be sentenced for the original offence.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, I rather ignored the remarks that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made, especially when he resorted to such cheap and revolting statements about autism as to induce in me a revulsion about what he was saying.
	I simply say this to the Minister. Anxieties on this subject have been raised repeatedly in this House. That is not some cheap polemic: those of us who are friends of the United States wish to see a system in place that commands widespread acceptance. However, it really is time that the Government listened to the anxieties being expressed, particularly because mechanisms are available to address the problems. An example is a provision introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Kingslandwhose passing is much regretted and lamentedand other noble Lords that would allow forum to be considered. This would provide considerable protection, but the Government have shown no inclination to put the provision on to the statute book, even though the mechanism now exists for that to happen. Furthermore, a review could undoubtedly take place that might not even require the renegotiation of the UK-US treaty, because I believe that our own national safeguards could be introduced without jeopardising it.
	Those are the issues that the Minister needs to address, and I have set out the sensible points that a sensible Parliament ought to be debating. Simply coming to the Dispatch Box and having a rant about this being a cheap matter does not help, because the issue is not going to go away. Most people can apply their common sense to matters of criminality. They feel a revulsion against it and a desire that it should be stopped, but they also want to see fairness. I have to say to the Home Secretary that, at the moment, there is a strong perception that we have created a system that might, on occasion, be very unfair. It is our responsibility in this House to try to do something about that. I commend our motion to the House.

David Hanson: We have had an interesting and full debate this afternoon. It has been characterised by some strong views being expressed about the position of the Extradition Act 2003 and the position of several individuals under that legislation. We have heard strong speeches from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and, helpfully, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), all of whom put forward arguments in support of the motion.
	The judgment that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have had to make is whether we believe that the review of the Act requested in the Opposition motion is justified. The motion states that
	the Extradition Act 2003 is being undermined by a series of high profile cases that are jeopardising confidence in the system.
	My right hon. Friend and I have made the judgment that we do not believe that to be the case, and I will try to illustrate our reasons for doing so. To support a review, we would have to say that we believed that public confidence was being jeopardised and that the Act was being undermined. As my right hon. Friend has said, we believe that the Act is operating in a fair and effective way, providing modernisation of the extradition treaty between ourselves and the United States, and undertaking a valuable function for our community.
	The treaty came into force, following the Act, on 26 April 2007. It defines clearly the extradition offence by way of a sentence threshold of 12 months in both states, and organises extraditable offences as those that are punishable by a year or more in prison in both states. I say to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that these measures were not devised by the Government following the events in New York on 11 September 2001. They were examined prior to those events as part of the modernisation of the treaty. Indeed, the US-UK extradition treaty was signed, subject to ratification, on 31 March. The text of the treaty was published and laid before Parliament under the Ponsonby rule, which allowed for an explanatory memorandum to be produced between 21 May and 30 June. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne)who I know cannot be here for the wind-up speeches todaysaid that we had used the royal prerogative, but he should note that no requests for a debate or for additional time for the Select Committee to consider matters were received at that time. That is why the treaty was ratified at that point.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary who signed the treaty at the timemy right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)is on record as saying that we did not get the best deal from the Americans. Surely that must mean that it is time to review the Act.

David Hanson: I have to say that I have not heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) say that. I believe that the treaty is an effective modernisation of this aspect of the relationship between the US and the UK.
	The reason why we did that is quite simpleand I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) agrees that we need effective judicial co-operation between the two countries to fight serious and organised crime, and terrorism. We need a treaty that is fair, balanced and effective, and I believe that we have one.
	I do not believe that the suggestions that the treaty is in some way unfair or unbalanced are true. We have looked at the two judicial systems and, as the Home Secretary has said, we have examined the evidence test in both countries andthis relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)reached the conclusion that we need to look at how judicial systems that are different can be brought together in the best possible way.

Menzies Campbell: How would a proper relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States be prejudiced if both countries had to meet the same standardprobable cause?

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2) , That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 290.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to the East Midlands Regional Grand Committee, the ayes were 277 and the Noes were 180, so the Question was agreed to.
	 [ The Division list is published at the end of today's debates.]

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
	That this House believes all old people should be treated with dignity and respect; regrets that 2.5 million pensioners are living in poverty; notes the Government's failure to state when it intends to restore the link between the uprating of the state pension and the growth in average earnings; regrets the sharp decline of defined benefit schemes during this Government's stewardship; further regrets that the Government failed to adopt proposals for fully-funded measures to help savers in this year's Budget; notes that some 45,000 people are forced to sell their homes each year to pay for long-term care; regrets the lack of costed options and proposals in the Government's Green Paper for the future funding of long-term care; recognises the pressures on the health and social care systems due to demographic factors and the debt crisis; notes that, despite claims to the contrary, no party has plans to cut support for pensioners such as free bus passes, free TV licences for over 75s or winter fuel allowance; supports active and independent ageing; pays tribute to all those with caring responsibilities across the public, third and private sectors, in particular the 6 million voluntary carers in the UK; and calls on the Government to introduce more effective policies to encourage respect for older citizens and to promote security and dignity in old age.
	Prior to their election in 1997, the Government made three hugely important promises to our older citizens. First, the current Prime Minister said:
	I want the next Labour government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achievedthe end of the means test for our elderly people.
	Labour also promised in its 1997 manifesto that
	all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation.
	At the 1997 Labour party conference, Tony Blair said:
	I don't want them
	children
	brought up in a country where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home.
	On all those promises, Labour has comprehensively failed to deliver for older people. Means-testing now affects nearly half of all pensioners. Some 5 billion a year in benefits goes unclaimed by pensioners. As for increased prosperity, there are now some 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty. Even before the economic downturn began to bite, research for Age Concern and Help the Aged showed that 60 per cent. of low-income pensioners were struggling to get by and were finding it hard to manage, two thirds were cutting back on gas and electricity, more than half were buying less or poorer quality food, and one in 12 pensioners said that they had built up debt as a result of increases in the cost of living. As for long-term care, some 45,000 people a year are still being forced to sell their homes to pay for care costs. Not much of a record, is it?
	What are Ministers doing, as this Government head for the buffers? They publish more discussion documents. In the last few days alone, they have produced two such documents. What do they have in common? Is it the fact that they serve only to underline this Government's record of inaction and failure when it comes to the needs and concerns of older people?
	First we had Building a society for all ages. After 12 years, it appears that Ministers have finally woken up to the challenges of an ageing society. Of course, we can agree that increased longevity is phenomenal. If my speech were to last an hour, Madam Deputy SpeakerI promise you that it will not, although it may seem like ityour life expectancy on average would increase by about 12 minutes during that hour. Indeed, in the foreword to that document, the Prime Minister is good enough to refer to my erstwhile constituent Henry Allingham, who at 113 is now the oldest manbut not the oldest personin the world.
	The best Labour can offer us is a grandparents summit in the autumn and an earlier review of the default retirement age, plus a ragbag of existing initiatives, empty self-congratulation and some vague aspirations for the future. There are to be refresher courses for older drivers. It is all jam tomorrow while hard-pressed pensioners bear the brunt of the recession.
	The document promises to bring forward to next year the review of the default retirement age. It rightly points out that more than 1 million people are already working beyond state pension agemainly, I suspect, through harsh economic necessity. It sets out the financial and social benefits of working longer, but for many people, continuing to work may be the only way of repairing their finances for retirement. Indeed we have already legislated to raise the state pension age to 68. But the Opposition have been saying for several years that retirement should be less an event and more a process. Flexibility is what older workers need. However, the document is bizarrely free of any opinion from Ministers as to whether they support a default retirement age. This is the very point to be decided by a High Court judge very soon. Perhaps in her response the Minister for Pensions and the Ageing Society could give us some clue about the Government's thinking on the subject, or even just tell us what she thinks. The Government also make much of the Equality Bill as a vehicle to tackle age discrimination, yet although that Bill includes wide powers to bring in exemptions relating to older people, the detail of the exemptions is not yet available.
	The document is also guilty of spin when it deals with pensioner poverty. It asserts:
	For the first time pensioners are now less likely than others to be in poverty.
	That is also a favourite mantra for Ministers, but it is based on statistics after housing costs. If we take the figures before housing costs, the story is very different.

John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that in their latest proposals the Government talk about a 20,000 tax on prudent pensionersif they still have a pension left. That will be a 10 billion-plus a year tax on the very people who have saved to look after their future. Is that not a disgrace, and does it not sum up the Labour approach to poverty in old age? They want more people to be poor, because they want to tax them more.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. The people who should always beware of the Government's Green Papers and White Papers are, of course, those who have taken the precaution of saving for their old age.
	I was talking about Government spin on pensioner poverty. The truth is that 2.5 million pensioners are living in official poverty. A recent OECD report put the UK at the bottomMinisters should listen to thisof a league table of 17 industrialised countries for its state pension provision. Another example of spin is the oft-repeated mantra by Ministersindeed, it makes another appearance today in the amendmentthat they are spending x billion more than if pre-1997 policies had been maintained. That is, of course, grossly misleading because it assumes that if there had been a Conservative Government in the intervening years not a penny extra would have been spent on our pensioners.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fairness, he assiduously attends these debates on pensions issues. I might have a slightly lived-in look, but I certainly was not a Member of this House in the early 1980s. We could go into the prehistory of 1980 and the decision to break the link at that pointagain, curiously, as history repeats itself, the then Government had inherited a disastrous financial situation from a previous Labour Government, but we will not go down that routebut this Government have had 12 long years to restore the link and they have done nothing about it.
	Perhaps the most unfairly treated of all are those pensioners to whom I referred a moment ago, who did the right thing all their lives. They saved while they were working so that they could supplement their pension when they retired. About three quarters of pensioner households receive income from savings and investment, and in recent times they have seen those savings rendered almost worthless. The interest that they receive, thanks to the economic mess that this Government have caused, is pitiful or even non-existent. To make matters worse, the Treasury assumes that they are getting 10 per cent. on those savings when it comes to calculating entitlement to benefits. Will the Minister now undertake to review the tariff income rule that causes such blatant unfairness?
	In this year's Budget, we called on the Government to increase age-related personal allowances for those aged 65 or above by 2,000, which would have benefited them by up to 400 a year. We pressed Ministers to scrap income tax on savings for basic rate taxpayers. Instead, the Government increased taxes on pensions. Ministers have even refused our proposal that the compulsory annuitisation rules be temporarily suspended during the financial turmoil. As a result, many people who prudently saved for their retirement have been forced to fix their income for the rest of their lives at the worst possible moment. We Conservatives believe that Governments should encourage saving, not penalise it. We would introduce measures that would help everyone, but particularly older people, such as the two-year council tax freeze, which is worth more than 200 to the typical family, and energy-efficiency improvements for every household, saving energy and reducing bills.

Nigel Waterson: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. The blatant way in which the Government are attempting to put off the evil day, while more and more Equitable Life victims sadly pass away, is outrageous. There seems to have been a campaign of delay and dithering, as on so many other things.
	The Government's record on pensions is no better. A report produced by the Department for Work and Pensions concluded that 51 per cent. of people would not trust the Government to act in their best interests on pensions. Although we passed the necessary legislation some time ago, Ministers will still not say exactly when they will restore the link between the uprating of the state pension and the growth in average earnings. May I please press the Minister on that again today?
	The Government have tested to destruction the notion that mass means-testing can deliver help to those most in need. As I said, each year more than 5 billion of benefits goes unclaimed by needy pensioners and some 1.7 million people never claim the pension credit to which they are entitled. Other benefits have even worse take-up, the best example being council tax benefit. Why will Ministers not support the British Legion and Age Concern campaign to change the name of the benefit to council tax rebate, so that people can see that it is theirs as of right?
	The Government have also presided over a huge retreat from private and occupational pensions. More than 70,000 occupational schemes have wound up or begun winding up since Labour took office in 1997no wonder, when one of the Government's first acts was their tax raid on pensions, which is estimated to have cost pension funds up to 150 billion since 1997. They have continued to heap extra costs and red tape on those employers who, for all the right reasons, continue to sponsor defined-benefit schemes for their work force. The latest estimate puts the funding shortfall for UK defined-benefit schemes at more than 200 billiona staggering 88 per cent. of the country's DB schemes face a shortfall. The pensions regulator has warned of severe pressures on employers and pension fund trustees and members, and pensions expert Dr. Ros Altmann has said that we are
	on the way to being a nation of pensioner poverty.
	In contrast, we will simplify pensions rules and do everything possible to encourage responsible employers to make generous workplace provision. The new system of personal accounts may auto-enrol many thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of workers, who may be no better off or even worse off because of the effect of the means-tested benefits system. Even worse, personal accounts could actually hasten the demise of more generous existing schemesa phenomenon called levelling down.
	Yesterday, the long-awaited Green Paper on care and support was publishedanother one with a chatty foreword by the Prime Minister. He seems to think that we need a major debate on the issues. We do not need another debate; we need a decision. Is that really the best that Labour can do after 12 years in government, and 10 years since the Sutherland reportmore dithering, more options to debate, and a menu without prices?

Christopher Fraser: The Secretary of State said yesterday:
	it would be wrong to force the pace of that debate.[ Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 162.]
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) accept that, for people who are dying in poverty because of the inaction of this Government, 12 years is far too long to wait?

Nigel Waterson: Well, 45,000 homes a year for 12 yearshon. Members can do the maths. People have had to sell their main asset, which was built up painfully over a working life, because the Government have dithered and delayed. To go back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), let me point out that of the main parties ours was the only one that had a specific policy on long-term care in their election manifesto. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale that we will have one in our next manifesto.

Jeremy Wright: rose

Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend is right; it is a bit of a mystery.
	Age Concern and Help the Aged have commented on the Green Paper, saying:
	With time now short the Government must set out a clear timetable to move from debating options to agreeing and implementing specific proposals.
	I entirely agree.
	I want to raise a specific issue to do with benefits for people with disabilities. The Green Paper makes various suggestions about using non-means-tested disability benefitssuch as disability living allowance and attendance allowanceto help fund the means-tested social care system. That would represent a huge shift in the principles that underlie the system of disability benefits, and would be of great concern to many disability organisations and disabled people. If media reports are to be believed, the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Health were arguing about the point right up to the last moment before the Green Paper was published. It seems that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions lost that battle in Government, but that will not be good news for disabled people.
	The Green Paper could not be clearer: there is no guarantee of extra Government funding to meet the yawning gap in provision. People may well end up being forced into a compulsory insurance scheme and, at the end of it, a nationalised system of care. Yet still the relentless destruction of hard-won family assets goes on, the lottery of care continues, and older people and their families remain fearful about what will happen to them when they are frail and needy. What older people need in these difficult times is more help from the Government, not less. Dot Gibson, the general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said:
	The fact that it has taken 12 years for the Government to come up with any proposalswith the prospect of up to another five years before any legislationis a terrible betrayal of Britain's pensioners and their families.
	I shall take this opportunity to explode some of the myths that Labour have been peddling about Conservative policies, especially in connection with the Norwich by-election. Labour is saying that we would cut pension credit, but that is dishonest as we have never said that we would cut either pensions or pension credit. Labour is saying that we would scrap free TV licences, but that is dishonest as we have no plans to do so.

Nigel Waterson: Labour is also claiming that we would scrap free bus passes for the elderly, but we have no such plans and it is dishonest

Nigel Waterson: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am talking about the here and nowthe pensioners who are suffering and being told blatant untruths, here and now.
	I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. Thanks to huge advances in health care, nutrition and living conditions, old age need no longer be a time of anxiety and frailty. Most of us are living longer and healthier lives. As someone said recently, 70 is the new 50 and 50 is the new 30 but, thanks to this Government, many older people have little to celebrate.
	Our older citizens are the innocent victims of this recession made in Downing Street. They deserve help in these difficult times. They need a Government who are on their side, not a Government who have destroyed the value of their savings, laid waste their pensions and failed to provide a proper safety net for when they can no longer cope. They need a new Government who are prepared to tackle those issues with fresh energy and fresh ideas. They need change. I commend the motion to the House.  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is as on the Order Paper [ Interruption. ] Order. Can those on both Front Benches come to order? Can we please have this debate conducted in the proper manner?
	I call the Minister to move the amendment in the name of the Government.

Angela Eagle: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from House to the end of the Question and add:
	welcomes the steps taken since 1997 to tackle increasing pensioner poverty; notes that policies delivering real help to pensioners include free bus passes, free TV licences, winter fuel payments and Pension Credit which ensures no pensioner lives on less than 130 a week; notes that the Government is targeting around 100 billion more on pensioners than if pre-1997 policies had been maintained; further notes the Government's commitment to reversing the policy of separating uprating of the state pension and growth in average earnings; notes the introduction of the Financial Assistance Scheme, the Pension Protection Fund and the Turner consensus as building a sustainable pensions system going forward; welcomes raising of Individual Savings Accounts limits at Budget 2009; warmly welcomes the Government's Ageing Strategy; further welcomes the publication of the Green Paper, Shaping the future of care together, which proposes a National Care Service to create the first national, universal, entitlement-based system for care and support ever in England; notes that the Government's proposals will shape a new care and support system fit for the 21st century that will be fairer, simpler and more affordable for everyone; further notes the published indicative costs an individual may face during their lifetime and the comprehensive impact assessment for the Green Paper; recognises that carers make a huge contribution to society; and acknowledges that the new Care Quality Commission has made dignity and respect one of its six key areas of inspection.
	We have heard quite a peroration today, but to say that it was policy-light would be the understatement of what is admittedly a young century. There was quite an extraordinary lack of content: a lot of bluster and noise, but absolutely no clue to, or content on, the Opposition's approach to these difficult and complex issues.
	The Prime Minister laid out the Government's agenda for the future in Building Britain's Future, and on Monday we published our strategy, Building a Society for All Ages, which explained how the Government will provide flexible retirement opportunities for older people and enable those who wish to remain in work to do so. We will ban unjustifiable age discrimination as part of the Equality Bill, and on that point I might ask Opposition Front Benchers why they voted against the Bill's Second Reading.
	We also announced that we are bringing forward the review of the default retirement age, and if the review shows that the policy is no longer justified we will take steps to remove it. We have laid the foundations for a better future for older people, focusing on planning and saving for later life, and we are committed to doing more.

Angela Browning: The hon. Lady mentioned personalising care. A problem that has been around for a long timeand one, I have to say, that I picked up on while on the streets of Norwich, North only this weekrelates to when people have a package of care. Elderly people do not want to find that they have to be put to bed at half-past 6 or 7 o'clock. Their care is not personalised; they are often in the hands of agencies, funded through social services, that do not personalise care packages, but treat elderly people as numbers.

Angela Eagle: That is why we are working with the process set out in our document Putting people first, which is about personalising care. It is absolutely clear that we should be transforming services for older people by having them at the centre, making choices about how their care is delivered, rather than having one-size-fits-all care policies under which there is a compulsory bed time in a person's own home according to what suits whoever comes to give the care. That is why yesterday's Green Paper put such choice and personalisation right at the centre of the transformation that we want to see. We have already spent 500 million on developing the first examples of that kind of personalisation. That approach is transforming how local authorities are planning to deliver their care packages to their clients in future.

Stephen Ladyman: I am sure that my hon. Friend has not forgottenperhaps the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) hasthat this Government made it compulsory for councils to offer a direct payment instead of providing care directly; every one of those people in Norwich could ask for the cash instead of the care service, and organise their care themselves. Equally, the Government gave councils the money to put a charge on people's homes so that they did not have to sell their homes during their lifetimes, and their care could be paid for after their deaths.

Angela Eagle: I think there might be some sort of approach on which we can agree in terms of philosophical change in this regard. What I am trying to do instead of having this rather juvenile exchange [ Interruption. ] Well, there is a lot of consensus in pensions policy. Conservative Front Benchers seem to think that consensus is a dirty word. That is interesting, and I will bear it mind when I hear them talk about it in future.

Graham Stuart: rose

Angela Eagle: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to get on with my speech as this is a short debate.
	I want to compare Labour's record with that of the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Eastbourne talked about pensioner poverty, but after 18 years of the previous Tory Government, pensioners in Norwich and elsewhere had got poorer. The poorest had to survive on a basic state pension of just 69 a week.

Angela Eagle: It was certainly one of the many factors.
	Twelve years of a Labour Government committed to helping the poorest and most vulnerable has seen 900,000 older people lifted out of relative poverty, each one with enhanced life chances that should be celebrated rather than dismissed by the Conservatives. Thanks to increases in the basic pension and pension credit this year, no pensioner need live on less than 130 a week. Since 1997, this Government have spent about 100 billion more than if we had maintained the policies that we inherited from the Conservatives, and 13 billion of that extra spending is happening in this financial year, despite the economic challenges that we face. As a recent European Union report underlines, there has been a significant change in the income of the over-65s in the UK. In 1997, it was 15 per cent. below the EU average: that is the Conservative record. After 12 years of Labour government, it has risen to 9 per cent. above the average.
	We continue our efforts to increase the take-up of pension credit, a benefit that did not even exist when the Conservative party was last in power. Since October 2008, it has been easier to claim, with claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit being made over the phone and pension credit being directly forwarded to the local authority without the need for a signed claim form. We continue to press ahead with targeted take-up campaigns, working with groups such as the Royal British Legion and the Market Traders Association to drive up pensioner claiming.

Angela Eagle: Of course, and we continue to try to drive up the percentage of people claiming. In the Welfare Reform Bill, we are taking powers to share information, so that we can try to make claims more automatic, and we now have a partnership agreement with all 209 primary local authorities to share housing and council tax benefit claims as well as pension credit claims. I am optimistic that we can continue to make good progress, but I am not going to say that I am completely satisfied with take-up. We still have to do more, and we are.
	Pension credit can open the door to many other benefits, such as housing and council tax benefits. Jointly, they can lead to an equivalent income of about 200 a week, which is why we recently wrote to 230,000 people about their council tax benefit to encourage them to take up the benefits to which they are entitled. We make 13,000 home visits every week to conduct benefit checks, and that work is ongoing week in, week out.

David Taylor: I was speaking to a pensioner in Norfolk just a few days ago who knew that the take-up rate for the winter fuel allowance is very high indeed. What she will not have known is that just 58 weeks ago today, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson),
	are the Tories now making a commitment to keep the winter fuel allowance if they win the election?
	The hon. Gentleman said:
	I will not make any commitments two years from an election.[ Official Report, 4 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 841.]
	We are now 58 weeks on, and 42 weeks and one day from the likely date of the election. When will the Opposition be clear about whether they support the winter fuel allowance? An assertion that they have no plans to cut it is not equivalent to an endorsement that they are going to continue

Angela Eagle: I have been generous in giving way. To get through the rest of my remarks, I will not be so generous. I merely observe that in May, when the right hon. Member for Witney was asked whether he would rule out abolishing the winter fuel payment, he refused to do so.
	The Government have legislated for the most radical pension reforms since the basic state pension was introduced. Those changes will sharply narrow the gender gap in pensions, delivering fairer outcomes for women and carers. In 2010, more women will be able to claim a full basic state pension than ever before. The number of qualifying years will be reduced from 39 to 30, which means that around three quarters of women reaching state pension age in 2010 will be entitled to a full basic state pension in their own right, compared with around only 30 per cent. now.
	Our reforms will enable more women to build up a state pension based on their own contributions. For the first time, paid and credited contributions for caring will be recognised equally for basic state pension and state second pension purposes. It is a great step forward that the invaluable caring work done by millions of women up and down the country is finally to be recognised, valued and rewarded in that historic reform.
	The Pensions Act 2008 also introduced a vital measure to allow eligible people, mainly women and carers again, to buy an additional six years of voluntary national insurance contributions. We estimate that as many as 500,000 women will benefit from that change alone.
	The Opposition have claimed that we have not been clear about the restoration of the link with earnings, but that change is already enshrined in law. We have been clear that we will restore the link between state pensions and earnings in 2012 or by the end of the next Parliament at the latest. From 2012, radical changes to private pension saving will start to come into effect. Those changes will be the most significant changes to pension provision since the state pension was introduced 100 years ago. We will see between 6 million and 9 million workers either newly saving or saving more in workplace pension schemes. That will be supported by the introduction of the personal accounts scheme, which will fill the gap in the pensions market for workers on moderate or low incomes. Annual pension contributions are estimated to grow to around 10 billion a year by 2015 as a result of those changes. Around 6 billion of that is estimated to be new saving. That represents significant steps toward tackling under-saving for later life, as well as a boost to the industry.
	Through the Budget this year, we introduced two important changes for pensioners with savings. From November, the capital disregard for pension credit will be increased from 6,000 to 10,000. That will benefit 500,000 people, with an average weekly gain of 4, and it means that 88 per cent. of pension credit recipients will be unaffected by having benefit deducted because of their savings. From October, we will increase the amount that the over-50s can save in an individual savings account to 10,200. Those measures, when taken with the planned changes to personal allowances announced in the Budget last year, will mean that around 600,000 more pensioners will pay no tax at all. Overall, that means that 60 per cent. of pensioners will pay no tax.
	Maintaining confidence in pensions is undermined by scaremongering about the state of the industry. Unlike in previous downturns, this Government have put in place arrangements to ensure that people are not left without a pension, even when their employer goes bust. This Government set up the Pension Protection Fund to ensure a strong and clear protection regime for people whose pension scheme fails. The Pension Protection Fund provides a safety net for 12 million members of defined-benefit schemes. It has 3 billion in assets and is currently paying out around 4.2 million a month in compensation to those whose employers have ceased to trade. Given those numbers, there is no question but that the Pension Protection Fund is sustainable and that people can have confidence that pensions savings can be maintained.
	After inheriting a situation in 1997 where pensioner poverty had been growing, this party has made genuine progress in helping the most vulnerable. For the first time in history, we in Britain have broken the link between age and poverty. Thanks to the policies of this Government, people are now no more likely to be poor because they are old. That is an achievement of which we on the Government Benches are rightly proud. We have also laid strong and lasting foundations for the future. We are not only taking action to deliver real help now to Britain's pensioners, but planning for generations to come. Our pension reforms mean that generations will benefit from a fairer and more generous state pension and that millions more will be saving in workplace pensions. Being old need no longer mean being poor, thanks to the action that we are already taking.
	That is the agenda of a Government who are on the side of the people, not marketsa Government of action who will not sit idly by and do nothing. We have published our strategy to build a society for all ages, and we will take action to bring forward the review of the default retirement age. Yesterday, we published a Green Paper looking at the care and support system, which encompasses many of the important issues that have struck such a chord outside this House, such as personalisation and the national carers system. I commend the Prime Minister's amendment to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose

Greg Mulholland: I shall endeavour not to speak for longer than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I think that we can all agree that the Government are extremely good at warm words. The Prime Minister stated in his foreword to yesterday's Green Paper on social care:
	The way in which our society provides care and support for those who need it, whether in later life of because of disability, should reflect our values of compassion and fairness. In Britain we rightly aspire to a care and support system in which everyone's needs are met and people can live their lives to the full.
	But how many older people in this country would recognise the reality of their lives over the past twelve and a half years in those words? Only last year, we had another consultation paper from the Government: The case for change: why England needs a new care and support system. Its opening paragraph stated:
	In a civilised society, we have a moral obligation to ensure that people in need are not left without any care or support.
	Yet here we are, a year on, talking about the start of a consultation process.
	The sad reality for pensioners in Britain in the 21st century is that 2.5 million of them live in poverty. That is about one in five of the pensioners in this country. No Governmentespecially a Labour Governmentshould be anything other than deeply ashamed about that. The Commission for Social Care Inspection has estimated that older people are forced to spend 6 billion a year of their own moneyoften through selling their homes or raiding inheritance fundsin order to pay for their care in retirement. More than 2 million pensioners do not claim money from the benefits and credits system even though they qualify for it. So, whatever the Minister says, I am afraid that the system is not working to address the problem of pensioner poverty.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is making powerful points about the position of the many pensioners who live in poverty in Britain today. Is he aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies predictedin 2007, before the current downturnthat there would be no change in the proportion of pensioners living in poverty in the next 10 years? I believe that the figure was one in five.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does my hon. Friend accept that one reason for pensioner poverty is that pensioner inflation is far in excess of the ordinary inflation that we feel? For instance, the increases in utility bills, water rates and council tax have far exceeded the rate at which pensions have increased. This has led to more pensioners being in debt and more being worse off than they were before. We need to address not only the level of the pension but the increase in costs that many pensioners have to bear. For instance, we could get rid of the council tax and replace it with

Christopher Fraser: I assume that during the election campaign the hon. Gentleman will be explaining in his own words how his party is going to offer free social care to the elderlyand how that will be costed.

Greg Mulholland: I will, of course, tell the House what my party policy isand, unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, we have one!
	The reality is that the Government have no timetable. We are told in the Green Paper that there will be a White Paper in 2010. Will it be in January, February or March? If it is any later than January, are we not talking about a Labour party manifesto commitment rather than a White Paper? The Government know full well that they will be able to do absolutely nothing to implement the proposals.
	Let me cite what Age Concern and Help the Aged have said:
	While agreeing that a public debate is needed
	let us face it, most of us have been engaged in that debate for many years
	the charity called on politicians...to set out definitive proposals for reform and a clear timetable for action as soon as possible.
	Yet even in yesterday's statement, we did not manage to get that. What we now have is yet more warm words and more commitments to achieve things that the Government know they cannot deliver.
	At least we achieved a U-turn on Monday on the mandatory retirement age. I welcome that, and the fact that the review will be brought forward. It is important, particularly in a recession, to allow older people who so wish the dignity of continuing with their working lives. At least that is now on the agenda, whereas when I questioned the Minister some months ago, the idea was directly rebutted. Let us hope that in this Government's remaining months, we will see further U-turns to bring about changes that will help older people.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) asked about my party's policy. I am very pleased to tell him; we announced our policy last year. As a party, we think it important to engage in the debate and say what our policy is. Our policy involves a universal care guaranteea partnership model based on the excellent King's Fund Wanless report, which the Government ignored.  [Interruption.] It is costed, absolutely. I would be delighted to send hon. Members a copy. We remain committed to ensuring that those who are least able to pay get all their care paid for, but that everyone receives a minimum entitlement to care. That is set out in the Wanless report and is now in the Green Paper, which is welcome, but it should have been in a Green Paper and up for discussion back in 2006.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that technicality. I was talking about the partnership ideal, but I accept that our policy is a version, based on the Wanless model, of what we believe to be genuine partnership.
	Let me quote the Prime Minister again. Back in 1993, at the Labour party conference, he said:
	I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never yet been achievedthe end of the means test for our elderly people.
	I am afraid that, twelve and a half years into the present Government, that is very much not the case.
	Let me now turn to the Conservatives

Greg Mulholland: Indeed. I do not think that the burden placed on local authorities is taken seriously enough in this place. We need mutual minimum entitlements for people throughout the country, to prevent a different quality of care from being provided in different areas.
	One would think that the Conservativesespecially as they called for the debatewould want to lead it by revealing their proposals for care in this country. I must say that I find their attitude rather barefaced. Although I do not agree with the Government on many aspects of this policy area, the Conservatives' criticism of the Government for not having a policy is amazing, given that they have no policy whatever themselves.
	The shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), said on the Today programme how late the Green Paper was, and of course that is true. He also said:
	We will come forward with a clear proposal by the next election if the Government don't.
	That, I think, exposes the reality of the Conservative position, which I am afraid is typical substanceless new Tory. It is very much like the Labour party's position in 1995-96. It is strong on warm words and spin, but very empty on policy. Of course, this is the party that abolished the link between pensions and earnings, and led us into the care system that we have now. The crisis with an ageing population was perfectly visible then, but the Conservatives did nothing to prepare for it.
	We have approximately nine months left before the general election, and we are being asked to start a discussion about care. We are being asked to wait possibly six years for fundamental change to the pension system, such as a restoration of the link with earnings. This is not a time for discussions, let alone the start of discussions; this is a time for firm policy commitment.
	The Secretary of State for Health tripped himself up yesterday. Having said that we want consensusthe title of the Green Paper is Shaping the future of care togetherhe said that at the next election all the parties would put their proposals to the electorate. Frankly, is that not what a Green Paper at this stage is all about, because it can deliver no change for people in our country before this Government leave office some time next spring?
	We need real decisions that will affect older people's lives to be made now. We need to bring forward the decision to restore the link between pensions and earnings. We need clear policies for how we will deal with the care crisis that is ruining older people's lives now. We have heard quite enough warm words, but older people know that this country currently does not adequately value them.

Kali Mountford: I have been a Member in this House for a little while now, and during that time I have discussed demographic change on many occasions. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has been in the Chamber for some of those debates, and we have had several exchanges about the need to look ahead at what we must do for people in the future. It is therefore a little remiss to have forgotten those occasions and instead to spend all our time talking about what we must do on pensions and pensioners as if that is all that needs to be addressed on the subject of elderly carebecause the subject of today's debate is elderly care, not pensions.
	I thought for a while that I had wandered by mistake into a session on leaflet-writing for the forthcoming Norwich by-election. That distressed me a little, because I had made a promise to people very important to me that on this rare occasion when I am able to speak in the House I would talk about elderly care, as that matters a great deal to me, partly because of members of my family, but also because of constituents of mine, some of whom have had good experiences and some of whom have not.
	Having seen the Green Paper and some of the statements made in the House, I particularly wanted to take advantage of the opportunity given to me by the OppositionI am grateful to them for thatto say what I think needs to be done on elderly care in the round. I want to pay tribute to the Government for what has happened already, because we would think from listening to today's debate that nothing had happened in the past 12 and a half yearsbut actually a great deal has happened.
	I can rememberMembers have to acknowledge thisa time when in homes we would think, My goodness, I hope I never end up here. I still think that about some homes, and we have to do something about that. Having said that, however, there are homes in my constituency that have changed beyond recognition, and I pay tribute to those people in my constituency and the officers on the council who have worked closely together on that. The local authority and the staff of those homes have worked hard to change the system entirely. As a result, we now have assessment centres so that when people leave hospital they can be properly assessed and we can ensure that they get the proper care that they then need.
	Sadly, that is not the case throughout the country. I have been very saddened when I have seen people who are not my constituents not receiving that level of care; some of them have been relatives of constituents of mine, who have asked me to intervene on their behalf. We have seen some high-profile cases on editions of the Panorama programme and elsewhere, so we cannot say with hand on heart that all our older people have had a life of dignity and carethe sort of life we would want for members of our own families. Some people have starved or have suffered elder abuse, and we must say that in this day and age that sort of thing must stop. It has saddened me a bit that this House has not taken just a little while to talk about that and what we need to do.
	I have not had enough time to digest all of this Green Paper, but from what I have read I have seen the beginning of what could tackle some of the issues. This country has some fantastic people whose brains we ought to be using in order to bring together what we could be doing, but I still wish to make suggestions in order to take things further. The idea of having personalised care has been talked about for some time, but it has not been properly delivered. Such care has been delivered in some places, but it has not been delivered everywhere and it has not been delivered to the standard that all of us have wanted. We would all want the best for our mother if she was in care, yet we would have to say that we have encountered cases in our constituency mailbags where the care provided has not been good enough.
	What in the Green Paper would make the situation better? Having one standard of care for everybody below which we cannot drop must be a good thing, but how are we going to make it work? Where the only other member of an elderly person's family is themselves old and frail, how could that person ensure that the care provided is top-notch? How could that person stand up to everybody in the system, given that the system sometimes feels overwhelmingly large? I think that the relevant body is now called the Care Quality Commission, but because there are so many names in the system these days people going into homes may not know the right name to give and may feel quite belittled by the system. Can the family member be sure that they are asking the right question? Do they know who to ask for? Are we really empowering people in the right way? Do we perhaps need something akin to what we have in the health service? Do we perhaps need a patient advice and liaison service in the social care system? Could we be considering that in this Green Paper, so that there can be advocacy for people in the care system and so that in future we do not have people who feel that they have not been fed properly?
	My mailbag, like those of other hon. Members, has contained cases where someone has felt that their relative had not been properly fed, had not received enough drink and had not received the proper care. Those people may have felt that their relative died inappropriately and too soon because of the care that they did or did not receive. If such people feel that and then cannot obtain answers, they will never believe that their loved one died in the way that anybody would want their loved one to die, and we cannot have that in our system today.

Kali Mountford: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I have read the Green Paper and I feel that the Government are making three interesting proposals. It is right for us to debate the new proposals and see what we can do to change the situation that he describes. The people in the cases in my postbag have been receiving NHS care, so that situation has not arisen because such care is paid for. I know that some people have not been in that position, but usually where someone is having to be fed, an NHS paid-for place is involved. I can see that he looks quizzical and does not agree with me, but the places in the cases I am discussing have involved NHS care. I understand the point that he is making, however. If he has experience of different cases that have not been funded by the NHS, I take his point.
	The Green Paper contains three options that we have all been asked to consider and debate. I have my own preference, but we will have to have the debate. I hope that people will not have to choose between their homes and care in the future, but that has been the choice for many years for many people, usually those in social care places. I would not want to make that choice. Personally, I have never wanted to inherit anything from my parents: I have wanted them to have the best care. However, I have heard from relatives of Alzheimer's sufferers that it is very distressing to know that they are unaware that the home that they have always treasured has had to be sold. So I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
	In a roundabout way, that has brought me to the point that I was going to make about funding in general. When people are feeling vulnerableand it is that vulnerability that I wanted the House to considerthey do not know where to go or to whom to turn. That is where the notion of advocacy comes in. In cases that I have looked at, the system has not always worked out as people expect. They have gone to people and asked for help, but they have been a little let down

Stephen Dorrell: I wish to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) in adopting a relatively non-adversarial tone, but nevertheless addressing some of the core issues that are at the heart of the debate that the Government seek on this sensitive issue.
	The truest words spoken in the House this afternoon have been by the former Minister for Pensions, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), who acknowledged that this subject has been avoided by Governments for the previous 25 years. It is therefore true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said from the Front Bench, that it is disappointing that a Government who came in pledged to action on the subject, which was certainly unfinished business when I left office as Secretary of State 12 years ago, are only now introducing a Green Paper and seeking a national debate. I am happy to enter into that debate, because it is a hugely important issue.
	The central problem, of course, and the reason why Governments have consistently failed to address the issue, is not that it is difficult to express the aspirationthe Green Paper expressed many of the aspirations accurately, and I could have used much of the same language myself. The key issue is how we produce the resources necessary to deliver the services that we all aspire to provide for our elderly citizens.
	I agree with the Green Paper's emphasis on the importance of carers. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, elderly people can be carers not only for their elderly relativesoften their spouses or partnersbut important sources of care for other members of the wider family community. Engaging in a proper discussion about how to use the voluntary support available from a wider understanding of family connections is an important part of this discussion. That is my first point.
	My second point relates to my intervention on the Minister on the subject of direct payments and to the rather larger subject of personalised care, about which the hon. Member for Colne Valley was talking. We must all have experience from our personal lives and in constituency surgeries of money being wasted because it has not been accurately used in a way that reflects the individual preferencesI use that phrase as distinct from a need calculated from a dispassionate point of viewof the service user. The importance of personalised care and, in particular, of the direct payment principle is that it focuses resources on the delivery of service chosen and fashioned by the service user. In my view, that is the best way of securing care that meets the service user's needs.
	The third issue that I want to touch on briefly before I come on to what I have described as the core issue of resources is what has been called a |National Care Service. The Government are extremely unclear in the Green Paper about what that phrase means. What, for example, is the role of the local authority in delivering a national care service? Is it to be a service provider? Is it to have local discretion on commissioning? The Green Paper refers to the oft-used postcode lottery, which is exactly the same concept as local discretion. Do the Government think that all exercise of local discretion is merely a manifestation of the postcode lottery? If so, do they aspire to a single, uniform national service or are they willing to defend local differences of service and not dismiss every local difference as merely a manifestation of the postcode lottery?
	I would suggest to Ministers that the phrase national entitlement is extremely dangerous, as we have seen not just from court cases in the social care field but from the broader debate about what the national health service should be providing as a national minimum entitlement. The moment we get into a discussion about the concept of a national entitlement, it becomes extremely difficult to produce services in a local area that reflect accurately the needs of people in that area and represent an efficient use of the resources available. Those resources will be different in different parts of the country for a variety of difficult historical reasons and the needs that arise will be different because of the nature of different local communities.
	The concept of a National Care Servicethe balance between the national definition and local delivery and between national priorities and local prioritiesis not made any easier by the introduction of initial capital letters. With respect to Ministers, all the difficult questions attached to that phrase are left unanswered by this Green Paper.
	I now come to the fundamental issue of resources. In 2006, Wanless analysed the resource implications of moving from social care provision, which we acknowledge does not deliver what we would want it to deliver to elderly people, to either what he called scenario 1, which was the current basic level projected forward for another 15 years, or scenario 2, which met the current aspiration projected forward for another 15 years. One can follow the arithmetic with decimal points, but in back-of-the-envelope numbers Wanless identified a funding gap of 20 billion emerging over 15 years. That funding gap of 20 billion is the elephant in the drawing room. It is the reason why, 12 years on, we have a call from Ministers for a national debate. It is the reason why we have not had the action promised by Tony Blair at the Labour party conference of 1997.
	The Government say that it is impossible for tax funding to fill that gapin their phrase, that is ruled outand I agree with them. I suspect that the Liberal Democrats still believe that it is possiblethrough a penny on income tax, no doubt.

Stephen Ladyman: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care. He is absolutely right: that is the elephant in the room. That gap can be funded only from public spending or from people's savingslargely, the money they have locked away in their property. Although he may be justified in criticising the Government for not facing the elephant in the room, are not his hon. Friends, who started this debate by implying that, somehow, people would never have to tap into their savings, equally open to that criticism?

Stephen Dorrell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that the funding gap has to involve more private resourcesI totally agree with that. However, although it may be the policy prescription that he espouses, I do not think that it is necessarily true that those resources have to come out of the savings of retired people in retirement. It is, to my mind, one of the unattractive policy options canvassed by the Government that we should have a compulsory system that pays for provision exclusively through what is, in effect, a tax on elderly people. I think that we should be encouraging people to look forward to their likely evolving need during their working lives, and the secret to doing that lies in the insurance system.
	The Government identify what they describe as partnership funding. As I said in an intervention on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), the Government's definition of partnership funding is different in an important respect from Wanless's definition of partnership funding. As it happens, I am more on the side of the Government than I am of Wanless in that debate. However, the Government identify partnership funding as one option and then imply that insurance is a different option. I think that they are wrong to imply that they are different; in fact, they are one and the same option.
	In my view, the Government's refashioning the resource that is currently provided from the Exchequerusing Government money more effectivelyin partnership with private resources will, if the Government develop a proper policy, automatically lead to an insurance market that allows resources to be mobilised in a way that is significantly fairer than trying to pay for the provision from a tax on pensioners, which is what I understand the Government's so-called comprehensive option to be. The core challenge, which the Government acknowledge but do not face head-on, is to use existing public resources more effectively and in a way that enlists private resources in order to fill the Wanless funding gap.

Phil Hope: I am loth to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing for option 2, which is the insurance modelpartnership with a voluntary option. What does he see as the strengths and weaknesses of that option in the longer term?

Stephen Ladyman: I sometimes think that I am a little bit too naive for this job. When I saw on the Order Paper the subject that the Opposition had chosen for debate, I thought, Ah, they realise that the Green Paper is coming out, and they want to make a contribution on it in a debate. It was only when I got to the Chamber that I realised that the debate was intended to be a statement to the people of the by-election constituency, Norwich, North.
	Before I try to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), and comment on his constructive comments and on the very thoughtful and impressive comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), let me say a little bit in response to the way in which the debate opened.
	If people in Norwich, North are listening to this debate to help make up their mind how to vote, let me remind them that it was the Conservatives who broke the link with pensions. They then attacked the Government's tax changes, and the impact that those changes had on definable benefit pension schemes, but they never point out that it was their Government who gave employers payment holidays, which accounted for a large part of the black hole in pension pots. Of course, the Conservatives never explicitly say that they will change those tax arrangements to refill the pot, because they are not going to do that. They do not mention that it was they who opposed the introduction of pension credits.
	The Conservatives raise issues such as Equitable Life and try to give the impression that if they were in power, they would find 5 billion with which to compensate all Equitable Life pensioners. I have some Equitable Life pensioners in my constituency, and I hope that we will treat them generously, but the Conservative party really should not try to give the impression that it will give a blank cheque to those pension holders when clearly it will not. The Conservatives keep telling us that they want honesty about public spending in the debate, yet today they have tried to imply that every pensioner will be better off. They have even tried to fudge the difference between means-tested benefits and universal benefits. They tried to give the impression to people who currently do not get means-tested benefits that the Conservatives will move to universal benefits, and that everybody will get something, without being honest to the people on means-tested benefits about the fact that if one does that, the pot of money has to be distributed more thinly, and the poorest in society will get less. The people of Norwich, North would be well advised to take what has been said today by Conservative Members with a substantial pinch of salt. That also applies to the Liberal Democrats

Paul Holmes: I was going to agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely until he made his last point. Everything that he says about Conservative policy, about the fact that the origins of the problems lie in what the Conservatives did in the 1980s, and about their lack of an answer now is true. However, is the hon. Gentlemana former Ministerhappy that after 12 years of a Labour Government we have the worst pensions in western Europe, 20 per cent. of pensioners in poverty, and still no answer on the question of care for the elderly? All we get, after 12 years, is another discussion paper that will come to nothing until after the next election.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman has said that pensioners are better off, but we have had 12 years of economic growth so of course they arealthough still far too many are in poverty. Does he agree that social care received only a 1 per cent. increase in the Treasury's spending provisions, which in real terms was a cut? It was separated from NHS spending, but should not the two be joined together in future?

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly think that we need to bring funding for the NHS and for social care together in various ways. I was going to make the following point later anyway, but will make it now instead: we already have a model that could help us to do that. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, because we have done the same thing for children.
	Children's trusts have been created to bring together all the resourcesfor education, social care and so onthat are focused on children. That is the responsibility of the directors of the children's trusts. We have also introduced the idea of care trusts. Local areas can voluntarily create care trusts, in which NHS resources and social care resources from the local council are pooled together. What we have not yet done, but ought to, is say that that approach should no longer be voluntary. We should say that adult care trusts must be created everywhere, with each one having a director of adult care services responsible for pulling together funding from the NHS and local councils and making sure that it is spent most effectively. That is a way in which we can reduce the cost of social care.
	One thing was missing from yesterday's Green Paper. We have identified the options for funding social care and how we might move forward on them, and I applaud the Government for grasping that nettle and being prepared to open the debate, but the Green Paper did not really put forward ideas for minimising the growth in the costs of social care.
	By the middle of the century, four times as many people will be needing care than now. The fastest growing demographic consists of people over the age of 100: if we are spending 12 billion to 15 billion a year now on social care, we will be spending 60 billion in today's terms by the middle of the century. That cannot be afforded, so as well as identifying ways to fill the social care spending gap identified by the right hon. Member for Charnwood, we have to look at how we can minimise that spending.
	Basically, the models in yesterday's Green Paper suggest that people should put a certain amount of money into the pot and that the Government will meet the rest of the costs, but that does not include any incentive for people to organise their lives in a way that minimises their care costs. They can continue to live in the biggest houses in the remotest parts of our constituencies and expect care workers to travel out to deliver care. Effectively, that will be at great expense to the Government: the liability falling on individuals will be capped, with the result that the public sector will have to step in and meet the costs.
	How are we to incentivise people to organise their lives more sensibly? One option that I am very keen to promote is extra care housing. First of all, it means that people remain independent, because they stay in their own homes and do not have to live in residential care homes. They can access care as and when they need it, but the system means that care-providing organisations can model the care around the fact that people who need it are all in a relatively small place.
	The extra care housing environment is a very efficient way to deliver care, yet councils around the country are still allowing developers to build ordinary, warden-assisted housing everywhere. Ninety per cent. of all the accommodation for older people that is being built is still simple assisted-living accommodation, with no element of care service provision. Therefore, we should change the planning laws, so that local councils can say, No, you can't build this accommodation as just warden-assisted accommodation. You have to have care services delivered there as a way to help with that aspect of reducing costs.
	When can we expect councils, as part of their planning duties, to design their town centres around what I like to call liveability for older people, and design older-people-friendly town centres, so that older people have an incentive to move from remote accommodation into their own accommodation but in the town centre, where it is far easier to provide them with the care services that they want?

Geoffrey Cox: I shall try to confine my remarks, to make them relatively short and, in the spirit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), to avoid the partisan rhetoric in which it is too tempting to engage on the eve of a by-election. I was, if I may say so, struck by the sincerity and dignity with which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) addressed the House, and if I were tempted to engage in the debate in a partisan spirit, her presence here, listening to me, would shame me into not doing so.
	This is a profoundly serious debate. As somebody with a 97-year-old grandmother, who lives near me, whom I am responsible for, who is in residential care, who has gone through the often bruising experience of losing a great many assets and who is now, I am afraid, afflicted by dementia, I must say that the problem is all too present and real to my family and to me. This debate is therefore not one in which I can engage with any light or bantering tone. Plainly, the situation that afflicts my grandmother as she descends into dementia afflicts tens of thousands of people throughout the country, and they look to this House not for party point-scoring, although hon. Members in all parts of the House have engaged in such activity in good humour today, but for solutions.
	I have been struck by something in this debate: we seem to have made a breakthrough. In recent years, it has been particularly depressing to note that there has been an element of deception in how we have approached the foundation of public policy on this issue. Indeed, the more I have come to play a part in the system under which we now operateon behalf of constituents and personallythe more apparent it has become that the system has become cruelly deceptive of those who operate in it. For example, carers are said to be entitled to an assessment and a carer's package. How often do we Members experience that as a reality as we carry out our constituency functions? In the rural part of the south-west that I have the honour to represent, it is more of a declaration than a reality.
	In Devon, part of which I represent, it is not true to say that when a person has exhausted their assets they can choose a home or remain in the home in which they have been resident. If the county council will not pay the fee associated with such homes, more and more families end up digging into their own pockets to top up the amounts that the county council will pay. Alternatively, a benevolent fund or charitywhomever one can findbecomes involved.
	The alternative with which the resident is presented is that of moving from a home in which he or she has become happy, or at least contented and used to. That is cruel. Having paid all they can and descended beneath the relevant threshold of assets, the resident comes to the system. In many parts of the countryparticularly in Devon, which has the sixth worst social care grant in the countrythey find that the reality is not what they were led to expect, which was that the state would provide for them in their straitened circumstances.
	Far too many in residential care are affected by serious conditions such as dementia; the hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke a little about that, but did not go into detail. My grandmother is in a home, clearly suffering from moderate, and increasingly severe, dementia. That is not, we are told, a matter for the health service and it is extremely difficult for her to access the mental health services that might assist her. I suspect that thousands of elderly people in residential care are affected by dementia. I fear that the curious assessment system that decides who falls under the health category and who falls under the social care category is also, to a large extent, a deception. The system is variously interpreted in different parts of the country and one senses that the lower the Government social care grant for a local authority, the more people who should be paid for from the health budget are in the homes of that authority.
	I make criticisms of that, but I understand its springs and origins; it comes down to a shortage of money. I said that we had made a breakthrough in this debate and the run-up to it: it is that I have yet to detect anybody who seriously contests the notion that all parties must make a frank and candid admission to the country. It is that we cannot conceivably fund these measures through taxation, and if both sides of the House start from that point, we will at least have the beginning of a consensusthe start of a foundation on which we can build a policy.
	I have yet to detect that; indeed, the Liberal Democrats went to the country at the last general election with a policy based on precisely that position. That reminds me of Harold MacmillanI am going to indulge in a little badinage, but I hope it is good-humouredsaying that the Liberals are full of original and practical ideas, but the problem is that the original ones are not practical and the practical ones are not original. One has to say that the policy with which the Liberal Democrats went to the country three or four years ago was not practical. I am delighted to hear that they are no longer wedded to it, given that even their own party members considered it to be based on a deception.
	We cannot go on suggesting to the people of this country that we can sustain elderly and social care on the basis of taxation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood that there must be a balance. I am going to risk provoking the concern of my Front-Bench colleagues by saying that we need to use public funds more effectively. I say to the Minister that I am not speaking for my party, so let him not make too much of this. I participated in a Select Committee that looked into fuel poverty and asked, Are we making enough of the public funds? and Are we directing them and making them more effective? That Labour-dominated Committee decided in its report, which I commend to the Minister, that we were not making effective use of the public means at our disposal. In my judgment, winter fuel payments should not be paid to those on higher-rate tax bands. It makes no sense to do that, and we could save about 250 million by not doing soa small amount, but it would be a start. We are not making effective use of the many different allowances that areI fully accept thisdesigned and targeted to relieve the poverty of the aged, including fuel poverty. On top of that, we should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood suggested, adopt an insurance system over and above a particular threshold.

Geoffrey Cox: Plainly, the detail needs to be examined. I can think of solutions through the insurance system that would not necessarily mean that the money was lost if one did not subsequently have to call on the insurance fund, and other techniques could be used. The danger is that there would be no incentive to engage in it. However, it would be retrograde and unfortunate simply to have a tax on those who were elderly or a tax on their estates; we must look for alternatives to that.
	The silver lining that I perceive in this debate, starting from a position of far less expertise than those who have participated in examining the problem in government, is that we have all been able candidly to acceptnobody has sought to argue otherwisethat we will need a system that is based at least partly on the private financing of those affected. If we can build on that as a starting point for this policy, we then have a responsibility to develop it. Twelve years ago, the former Prime Minister came into government promising that he would solve this problem. It is a bit late for the Labour Government to produce a policy now, but I am glad that they have, because at least we can all begin to talk about this an adult and sensible way and to say to the public that it can no longer be done on the basis of public means and direct taxation.

Richard Taylor: At the beginning of the debate, I was quite depressed by the partisan nature of the contributions, so I am delighted to speak towards the end and follow three or four excellent contributions that show the willingness of Members on both sides of the House to take this matter seriously. I welcome the debate as an attempt to look at the problems of long-term care realistically, sensibly and openly, and, I hope, to achieve consensus.
	I absolutely agree that the proposals have been rather slow in coming. I have spent quite a bit of time looking back at the Select Committee on Health's report on continuing care, published in April 2005. I had to examine the membership of the Committee to ensure that the Secretary of State himself was not a member at that time, because, as far as I can see, most of the recommendations in that report are covered in the Government's proposals and the Green Paper.
	I shall go through one or two of those recommendations and what we discovered. The frequently identified problems were listed at the time:
	Inconsistency of criteria between PCTs/SHAs
	primary care trusts and strategic health authorities
	leading to inequity.
	Gap between eligibility criteria on paper and application and interpretation in practice.
	Inconsistent approaches to assessment and a lack of fit with the Single Assessment Process.
	Inaccessible or incomprehensible criteria (both for professionals and patients).
	Concerns over exclusion of many chronic needs (especially dementia) because of focus on physical care,
	and
	Confusion over relationship between high band RNCC
	registered nursing care contribution
	and fully funded continuing care.
	The whole thing was an absolute nightmare, and I hope that the Green Paper will set about solving some of the problems.
	I shall quickly go through one or two of the recommendations that the Committee made. Early in the report, we stated:
	We therefore recommend that the Government's review of continuing care funding arrangements take the form of a full, formal public consultation, in line with Cabinet Office recommendations.
	It appears that, thank goodness, we have got there now. We asked the question
	what is health and what is social care,
	and we got no meaningful answer, so we moved on to the absolutely obvious, stating:
	We strongly recommend that the Government remove once and for all the wholly artificial distinction between a universal and free health care service operating alongside a means-tested and charged for system of social care.
	We got the answer that we expected from the Government, as the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) might think:
	If by recommending that the Government remove the distinction between health and social care, the Committee is really recommending the removal of means testing for care services, then this would have significant cost implications.
	The cost implications that we identified then were a mere 1.5 billion, estimated to rise to more than 3 billion by 2020, not taking into account the costs of looking after patients, such as food and residence costs. The figure of 20 billion is possibly more nearly correct, and that is obviously quite unaffordable from taxation. There appears to be a general consensus about that.
	The Government are to be congratulated on the fact that at a time of recession, they have introduced a Green Paper inviting consultation on how we can find the money. I cannot help hoping that that spills over into the national health service as a whole, because we have to ration money for the NHS as well.

Paul Burstow: I want to contribute briefly to the debate in two particulars. Many useful contributions have been made about the proposals for paying for long-term care, and there is a genuine sense of dj vu about them. Not least, yesterday's statement contained echoes of the statement made by a former Secretary of State in May 1996. I want to use the debate to ask the Minister two questions, which need to be asked with only three sitting days left before we break for the summer recess.
	The first relates to a commitment that was made last June by the Minister's predecessor immediately to produce a paper on prescribing anti-psychotic medication to people who suffer from dementia. That scandalous practice affects more than 100,000 people a year in care homes, and it probably accounts for the premature deaths of around 23,000 elderly people up and down the country. It is clear from the evidence that has been compiled over many years that such drugs cut lives short, that they result in strokes and that they cause many of the symptoms that are then used to justify yet more prescribing. Government action on this issue is long overdue, so will the Minister tell us when the now overdue report on prescribing will be published and the necessary action that will be taken?
	My second point is about the Government's commitment to do something about elder abuse more generally and put in place new measures to tackle that scandal. Some 342,000 people a year are the victims of elder abuse in this country. That is a scandalous tally, and it does not even include those in care homes or those with dementia. I would therefore like the Minister to tell us when he expects the No Secrets review to release a publication. The codes of practice for consultationcodes to which the Government say they adheresuggest that a publication should have come out in April. However, we have seen no analysis of the responses to the consultation, nor have we seen any indication of the Government's proposals.
	I have heard that the intention is to smuggle out an analysis in electronic forma rather flawed and partial analysisof the consultation on No Secrets on the Department of Health's website tomorrow and that that will be done with no fanfare, no scrutiny and no indication of what actions will flow from it. It would therefore be useful if the Minister were to confirm today that it is not the Government's intention to do that, that there will be full accountability to this House and that there will be a genuine effort to keep minds open to the case that has been made by the police, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and almost every statutory body that responded to the Government's consultation. Legislation should be introduced to put the protection of vulnerable adults on a similar footing to the protection of children. Surely that should happen, because it is long overdue.
	Those are the two issues that I wished to bring to the House's attention. I hope that the Minister will do me the honour of responding to those two points with some reassurances this evening.

Christopher Fraser: Like others, I pay tribute to those colleagues who have spoken in this debate, because many of us feel passionately about this issue.
	In particular, I want to refer to something that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), a former Minister, said about the Opposition motion. The issue has been on the Opposition agenda for some time. From where I am standing, I assure him that it is not in our motion, because of the Green Paper that was published yesterday. Partisan comments have passed across the Chamber, but I am a Norfolk MP and make no bones about it. The issues that affect people in Norwich equally affect people in my constituency, so I make no apology for bringing up that matter.
	The fact is that elderly people feel vulnerable, but at the same time people in Norfolk are proud people: they want dignity and respect in retirement; and they want the state there as a hand-up, not as a handout. The fact isthis comes up on the doorstepsthat there is much social and economic deprivation across the county of Norfolk. I have spoken to people in Norwich and in my own constituency, which is highly ruralNorfolk is a disparate county that covers eight constituencies of various sizesand they are concerned that what is being proposed today is too little, too late.
	Tony Blair talked about the issue 12 years ago. I have a quote here from a constituent who came to see me at my surgery: It's 12 years of hardship and miserynot just for me, but for my family and all those people whom I am now reliant on to give me the support I cannot get from the state. That is the fact of the matter, and that is what we face every day. I encourage hon. Members to listen more to constituents who say such things. That is not partisan; it is our job as Members of Parliament to stand up in this House and represent those points of view, however people may see it from the Government Benches. I am doing this, because it is right for the people of my constituency and the people of Norwich.
	At the end of the day, we have a growing elderly population, who realise that their pensions will not cover the cost of care that they have to provide. They feel penalised as they go about their daily lives. They have made a contribution to the community and to society, and they have paid their taxes, yet in their hour of need, they often feel that the rug has been pulled from beneath them.
	The families of many elderly people have moved away, because they can no longer afford to live next door, so they can no longer invite their grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles or aunts to live with them. Families have had to move because of work. My constituency covers 1,200 sq miles, and people can live very far away from each other while remaining in the same constituency. Villages and rural areas often do not have a proper infrastructure or a proper transport system. It is all very well to say that elderly people can get help from their families, but that is just not practical and it does not work.

Christopher Fraser: I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that families try. No matter what their political persuasion or where they live, they try to help each other as best they can. At the end of the day, however, selling one's own home to pay for care is not the solution. Over the past 12 years, many people waiting for help from the Government have done their best to sort, but selling one's home in an economically and financially difficulty environment is not the easiest option.
	Some of the proposals in the Green Paper will not suit people, because they will not be around to see the benefit of them. There is no mention of people who are coming to the end of their lives having struggled to manage. What are they to do? What is the Government's commitment to them? The Green Paper talks about the next generation, but we are talking about the here and now. The Green Paper goes some way towards dealing with the problems, but it is too little, too late.
	Norfolk is a good example of a local county council in a diverse county doing its best. It serves local farming communities, rural villages, larger towns and, of course, the city of Norwich. Long distances mean that costs go up. People in my constituency, and in Norwich, will need to decide in a couple of months' time whether they can afford to fuel their homes or put food on the table. That is as bare as it gets, and it is a very difficult thing to decide.
	People feel very isolated, and they do not have to live in a rural community to do so. People who live in terraced houses in streets with 150 other residents can feel just as isolated if their neighbours have no respect for them and do not feel the need to knock on their front door, and if local services do not have enough money to offer services such as meals on wheels. Other charitably based organisations sometimes cannot offer services to the community. People are making great sacrifices in difficult times, and the Government must address that problem. The people of Norfolk and the rest of the countyand, of course, the people of Norwichdeserve better.

Stephen O'Brien: We have had a wide-ranging debate that has been characterised by thorough and thoughtful contributions from both sides of the House. In addition to all our constituents, many of us have parents, grandparents, other relations and friends for whom these subjects are a genuine reality. In that spirit, I pay particular tribute to the measured, moving and brave speech by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). It was one of her understandably rare speeches in the House, and we all listened to it with great care.
	The debate has also been characterised to some degree by disappointment in the Government. That disappointment coalesces around the question: who has been in Government for the past 12 years? We must also ask who promised, 12 years ago, to deal with the very issues before us today. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) opened the debate with an excellent speech that covered the economic issues affecting pensioners and addressed the aspects of the motion that cover care of the elderly in the round. He pointed out that the present Prime Minister promised to end the means test for elderly people, but had not done so. The Labour party promised in its 1997 manifesto that
	all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation,
	and, as we saw on countless news bulletins last night, Tony Blair told the 1997 Labour party conference that he did not want children to be
	brought up in a country where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home.
	On that latter point of care, it is not as if the Government have not had chances to deliver. On the subject of caring for the elderlythe title of this debatethe Government set up a royal commission on long-term care as far back as 1999. In 2006 the King's Fund published the Wanless report, which set out the models and problems faced much more thoroughly than the Government's Green Paper published yesterday did. In response to the Wanless review, the then Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced a zero-based review. There is no evidence of any serious work being undertaken as a result of that; it seems that it amounted to little more than kicking the problem into the long grass.
	Expectation then coalesced around the comprehensive spending review in 2008 fuelled by comments by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is now a Foreign Office Minister. He said that the Department would
	secure a fair and reasonable settlement as part of the comprehensive spending review[ Official Report, 21 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 98WH.]
	It did not: the spending review simply announced another consultation. That consultation was launched by the Prime Minister in May 2008, in a speech to the King's Fund, in which he said:
	the government is publishing a consultation document setting out the challenges we face and why we must now look again at the options for reforming our current system of care and support.
	I see that the Prime Minister also wrote a foreword to yesterday's Green Paper, which said:
	What is now needed is a major debate about the challenge we face and the options for addressing it. This Green Paper sets out those options and the principles which we must now consider. This is the start of a process of discussion rather than the end.
	It is thus a fair question to ask just how many starts the Government need. We rightly ask that question, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) comprehensively did in his response to yesterday's statement.
	Let me touch briefly on the question of consensus. Throughout this debate Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have deployed the word consensus. The Prime Minister ended his King's Fund speech by saying:
	I look forward to building a consensus in this country about the best way ahead.
	But the Government's record suggests that their understanding of the concept of consensus is to use it as a cloak when they are in trouble. At no point have they approached vast numbers of people in the third sector, let alone the official Opposition, to discuss the ways forward. As far as I know, they have not talked formally even to the Liberal Democrats or others. One would have thought that that was hardly a way to build a consensus. More importantly, the Government have consistently withheld the work they have commissioned and paid for with taxpayers' money, using it for political leaks rather than for informing public debate.
	If this talk of consensus is to be more than warm words, the Government need to start building one, as urged by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who spoke powerfully, informed by his experience of caring for his grandmother. They need to build consensus around agreement that social care in all its ramifications cannot be fully met from taxation alone.
	I turn to the so-called models or options set out in yesterday's Green Paper. On the first, which the Government call the partnership option, the House must be careful about the choice of words. Derek Wanless described a partnership model, but for him, the Government would pay a first section of the costs and would match-fund the next sectionan element that has slipped away in the Green Paper. The insurance option is actually a partnership plus, with insurance coming in to fill the gap. This was favoured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who spoke authoritatively and reminded us that it has been 12 long years since a proposal was first promised by the Government.
	From the Government's presentation, it did not look as though traditional insurance solutions would work, so considerably more examination was needed. Inexplicably, however, the state-backed version of the insurance model has not been modelled. Indeed, an impact assessment, signed by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) who is about to reply to the debate, said that all the benefits had been properly assessed for impact. When we get to the comprehensive model, however, it is equally problematic, and the impact assessment admits that this model has not been specifically modelled.
	According to the impact assessments, it looks as though all the Government's preferred solutions and schemes assume that money is to be taken from abolishing the attendance allowance. The Green Paper is blind on this issue, so will the Minister explain what assumptions the models make about the disability living allowance?
	I shall now talk briefly about people with disabilities who are under 65. Mike Smith, chair of the National Centre for Independent Living, said yesterday:
	Disabled and older people were hoping for leadership from the government in care reform.
	It is clear that there are few ringing endorsements for the Government from the care sector. Indeed, it has been pointed out that reform was urgent for 12 years and remains so today, and that those under 65 with lifetime care needs have been completely overlooked.
	We need to ask the Government a question that they have sought to skate over, not least yesterday. They call this a national care service. The national health service was extended throughout the United Kingdom from the outset. Can the Minister explain what the Government's plans are as regards cross-border portability in social care in a national care service, when it is impossible for Members, or indeed Government policy, to impose what the Government claim will be part of a national service on three parts of the United Kingdom? That question has yet to be answered.
	I hope that the Minister will also be able to tell us what provision the Green Paper makes for meeting the costs of accommodation and foodthe so-called hotel costs. It is interesting that, having said that he would set out his own party's policy, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) failed to do so, becausenot least at the last general electionthe Liberal Democrats said that they would meet care costs, including hotel costs, because that had worked in Scotland. It did not work in Scotland. Indeed, in answer to a question from me in Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) put it on recordit is in the  Official Reportthat the Liberal Democrats' policy had been dishonest, and that the writers of her party manifesto had used that approach.
	Lest anyone become carried away with the word consensus, let me say that politics is about choices. Let me take this opportunity to explode the myth that Labour has been peddling about Conservative policies, not least in Norwich, which I have visited twice. How many times has the Minister been there? Labour is saying that we would cut pension credit, but that claim is dishonest. We have never said that we would cut pensions or pension credit. Labour is saying that we would scrap free television licences, but that claim too is dishonest. We have no plans to scrap free television licences. Labour is claiming that we would scrap free bus passes for the elderly, but we have no such plans, and it is dishonest to claim otherwise.
	Let us rise above Labour's mischief, however. The debate has given us all a chance to rededicate ourselves to delivering, above all, independence, dignity, security and good-quality care to our elderly population. We must all work towards that, and nothing less. It is the job of our political generation to find the way forward, and we shall.

Phil Hope: We have had a vigorous debate. Some of it has been driven by political motivationswe know where they are coming frombut some has been driven by the experiences of constituents and by Members' personal experiences. I welcomed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)who spoke from huge experienceand that of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox). Both expressed sincere concern, analysing their experiences and seeking solutions for the future.
	Care for older people is an issue that arouses strong feelings, and rightly so. Given that a country is measured, ultimately, by how well it looks after its elderly, it is right for this question to be at the heart of our political discourse, whether here in Westminster, in Norwich or in any other part of the country.
	I recently met an elderly couple in Croydon who were receiving excellent care through a unique partnership between the national health service, the local authority and a voluntary organisation, which were working together to give them high-quality support. They made it clear to me that they wanted us in Parliament, and in Government, to ensure that they would be looked after financially, and wanted to be reassured that their health and social care needs would be met so that they could play an active part in their community. They wanted it to be recognised that although they were elderly and frail they still had something to offer society, and they wanted the opportunity to prove it. It is up to us to rise above the party political division that will inevitably accompany debates of this kind, and try to reach a consensus on a better future for older people.
	Let me deal first with welfare reform and financial well-being. Many Members have reminded us of our starting point. In 199710 years agopensioner poverty was a national disgrace: 3 million older people were living below the breadline, and the poorest had to scrape by on 69 a week. Today, no one under 60 need live on less than 130 a week. We have made huge strides in providing help for older people. Every pensioner benefits from free off-peak bus travel, free television licences and help with fuel bills.
	The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and other Conservative Members have tried to deny it, but we have seen glimpses of a future Tory Government, with threats to those free services, and to the winter fuel payment in particular. He may wish to deny it, but we know differently, and so does the rest of the country.
	On care and services for older people, two themes of the Opposition contributions have been that the Green Paper was too little too late, and that nothing has been done over the past 12 years. Let me put the record straight. Through putting people first, more than 0.5 billion of extra investment is today allowing local authorities to transform the way services are delivered, including through piloting new personal care budgets. I thought there was support throughout the House for that new direction in the delivery of social care. My hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) both emphasised that it represented the right approach.
	The national dementia strategy was published as recently as February this year. It is the first strategy of its kind, and it is a genuine milestone in developing new services for people with dementia and their carers.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) asked two questions. We will publish our response to the review of anti-psychotic drugs shortly. On the review of abuse of adults and older people, let me put it on record that such abuse is never acceptable; we must make that very clear in this House. We will publish the response to the major consultation, which involved more than 12,000 submissions from professional organisations and older people themselves, this Friday.
	Let me be clear about what we have done in spending terms over the past 12 years. In 1997, adult social care spending was less than 10 billion. Ten years later, that figure has risen to 15.3 billiona 50 per cent. real-terms increase. Local authorities have received record increases in funding for the care that they provide. Spending on care for older people has gone up from 6 billion to almost 9 billiona 41 per cent. real-terms increase. All that investment over the past 12 years, and all the reform that I do not have the time to describe in detail, has made a real difference to older people in our communities, but we now need to build on those successes to reshape the entire system.
	Given the unfairnesses that others have described in the system, and given the demographic challenge of an ageing society, it is clear that we need radical proposals to maintain a viable and affordable care service for the future. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health laid before Parliament the vision of a new national care service to deliver a fairer and simpler approach to funding and accessing care services for all adults. With the exception of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and his Front-Bench colleagues yesterday, I thought that on the basis of some of the contributions from both sides of the House, we were beginning to see a bit of a consensus emerging. It is true to say

Mark Harper: rose

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the steps taken since 1997 to tackle increasing pensioner poverty; notes that policies delivering real help to pensioners include free bus passes, free TV licences, winter fuel payments and Pension Credit which ensures no pensioner lives on less than 130 a week; notes that the Government is targeting around 100 billion more on pensioners than if pre-1997 policies had been maintained; further notes the Government's commitment to reversing the policy of separating uprating of the state pension and growth in average earnings; notes the introduction of the Financial Assistance Scheme, the Pension Protection Fund and the Turner consensus as building a sustainable pensions system going forward; welcomes raising of Individual Savings Accounts limits at Budget 2009; warmly welcomes the Government's Ageing Strategy; further welcomes the publication of the Green Paper, Shaping the future of care together, which proposes a National Care Service to create the first national, universal, entitlement-based system for care and support ever in England; notes that the Government's proposals will shape a new care and support system fit for the 21st century that will be fairer, simpler and more affordable for everyone; further notes the published indicative costs an individual may face during their lifetime and the comprehensive impact assessment for the Green Paper; recognises that carers make a huge contribution to society; and acknowledges that the new Care Quality Commission has made dignity and respect one of its six key areas of inspection.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Secretary Bob Ainsworth relating to Defence, Mr Pat McFadden relating to Companies and Secretary Ed Balls relating to Children and Young Persons. (Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

That the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Miscellaneous and Transitional Provisions and Commencement No. 5) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved. (Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 17367/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE); and supports the Government's aim to work with the European Commission and other Member States to further reform the existing Directive. (Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

Motion made,
	That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added. (Mary Creagh.)

Motion made,
	That, at the sittings on Monday 20 July and on Tuesday 21 July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received, any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses. (Mary Creagh.)

Motion made,
	(1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the following matters:
	(a) the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees;
	(b) scheduling business in the House;
	(c) enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House; and
	(d) such other matters as appear to the Committee to be closely connected with the matters set out above, and to report on these matters by 13 November 2009;
	(2) That the Committee also consider such other matters as may be referred to it from time to time;
	(3) That the Committee consist of eighteen Members;
	(4) That Mr Graham Allen, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Graham Brady, Mr David Clelland, Mr David Drew, Natascha Engel, Dr Evan Harris, David Howarth, Mr Michael Jack, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Chris Mullin, Dr Nick Palmer, Martin Salter, Dr Phyllis Starkey, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young be members of the Committee;
	(5) That Dr Tony Wright be Chairman of the Committee;
	(6) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
	(7) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present
	Parliament.  (Mary Creagh).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mary Creagh.)

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a stalwart supporter of the campaign that we are conducting to try to get Diageo to change its mind. The fact that she has been so vocal in her support shows the extent to which the people of Ayrshireand, indeed, Scotland, to a large degreehave fallen in behind the campaign. She anticipates many of the arguments that I am about to make, so perhaps I should carry on.
	The plant, the distribution centre and the support services provided by local businesses contribute in excess of 20 million a year to the local economy, and that economy stretches beyond Kilmarnock. By operating the bottling plant in Kilmarnock and the distribution centre in Hurlford, Diageo contributes all that benefit to the wider community of Kilmarnock. To that extent, the people of Kilmarnock and Ayrshire are grateful for the years that it has run the plant, but the situation has been far from a one-way street, and I think that the business would accept that.
	In 1819, Johnnie Walker, a local grocer, first blended his whisky for sale in his own shop. Today, the brand Johnnie Walker is the world's leading blended whisky, outselling every other whisky in volume, and outselling every other spirit in value. Workers in Kilmarnock contributed to that success story with their loyal, efficient profit-making and hard work.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and indeed for his support, to which I shall come back in a moment. The interventions reassure me that the argument that I am developing is the right one; it is being anticipated right, left and centre. It may well be anticipated further as the evening goes on. I was explaining that the situation is far from a one-way street, and that the people of Kilmarnock have contributed significantly to the success of the plant and its well-known and internationalist spirit.
	For many of my constituents, Johnnie Walker is woven into the weave of Kilmarnock. I have to say that until 1 July, they thought that that commitment was reciprocated. Diageo is an impressive multinational company: it provides 4,500 jobs in Scotland, leads the drinks industry across the world, and markets some of the world's best-known and leading brands. To its credit, it earns formidable amounts from exports for the United Kingdom and its shareholders. Ostensibly, it is a modern company managed according to the best 21st-century corporate practices. That means that over the years, its workers in Kilmarnock have been conditioned to understand just how much they are valued by their corporate masters, just how important their individual and collective contributions are to the corporate success, and, importantly, how seriously Diageo takes its responsibilities to them as partners, not just workers. Its workers have been conditioned to understand how much the company is committed, as part of its ethos, to cherish and preserve its legacy and heritage and to protect the communities that are its hosts.
	I could paper the walls of this Chamber with corporate documentation that articulates that message of partnership. It is designed to encourage the work force to show greater efficiency and greater loyalty, and it succeeds. Yet on 1 July, those same workers were told that the need for more shareholder value required that their bottling plant be closed within two years, and that the distribution workers be transferred within months to a new employeressentially, as they were told in a letter, whether they liked it or not.

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking up for Glasgow, which he does regularly in this House. I am sure that the workers are pleased that they are not being forgotten in this debate. I hope that the campaign will continue and that they will have other opportunities to make their case. However, time is always short for these debates so I shall try to make progress with the argument that I want to make for my constituents, and in respect of the wider issues at stake.
	Since 1 July, much has been written and spoken about this matter, in the Scottish media and more widely. Latterly, corporate whisky has been responding to the campaign to get Diageo to think again about its proposals, and last week Diageo embarked on a counter-campaign.
	Over the weekend, it was reported in the online edition of  The Sunday Times that the view of the managing director of the distiller and bottler Ian McLeod and Co. was that, as a consequence of the decision, the whisky industry had
	become the latest plaything of government and opposition.
	He is reported to have said:
	If the politicians are going to start shouting from the rooftops whenever a company tries to make some of their employees redundant, it hardly sends out a positive message to prospective inward investors in Scotland.
	Some of us thought that that attitude had gone out in the 1980s, but unfortunately it seems to be alive and well in corporate whisky. My message to that director is that his rather quaint and old-fashioned views mainly reinforce my concerns about where we will end up if we do not stop and think hard about the full implications of the proposals.
	Far from playing at it, we are deadly serious. The workforce at both Kilmarnock and Hurlford, the Unite and GMB unions, East Ayrshire council, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government, Willie Coffey, who is the Member of the Scottish Parliament for my constituency, the members of the recently elected Scottish Youth Parliament, as well as wider civic society in Kilmarnock and Loudoun and in Ayrshire, have all joined together to speak with one voice in asking Diageo to think again. That we have sustained this campaign from a standing start for two weeks now, maintaining a consistent public presence and gathering support from across the world, is convincing evidence that the cause is just. However, it is also a sign of the degree of pain that the community is feeling and the level of fear that it has for its future.
	The Johnnie Walker workers in Kilmarnock are extremely grateful to wider Scottish society for the support that they have received. The First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have both pledged their support. On behalf of my constituents, I should like to thank the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson), for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for joining me last week to launch an all-party UK parliamentary presence in this campaign. I should also like to add our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and the Scottish Affairs Committee for taking up our request that it investigate the implications of the decision for Scotland.
	If we add to that the growing petition that is attracting support from throughout the world and the offers of support that are flooding in from all over, the House may get a sense of how important the issue is. All that will be reflected in a march and rally in Kilmarnock on 26 July, to which all those Members not on holidaywhich we all know is for all but two weeks during the recessare invited.

Des Browne: A considerable number of Members wish to intervene, and I shall be happy to take those interventions, subject to leaving my right hon. Friend the Minister an opportunity to address the House at least for a few minutes, but I want first to make some progress.
	It cannot be the case that all those whom I have cited and who have fallen in behind the campaign are wrong about the argument, and that the only people who are right are Diageo executives and corporate whisky. It cannot be the case that the former are the only people in Scotland who cannot see the point. My research has revealed that an embarrassment of phrases from whisky's own promotional material could be deployed to show what we all know, which is that, when a glass of whisky is raised anywhere in the world, the whisky drinker is raising Scotland in a glass.
	Of all the competing brands of Scotland in a glass, Johnnie Walker is the most successful by a street because of its provenancebecause of its roots stretching back to 1820. To paraphrase the words of another successful advertising campaign, it delivers what it says on the label.

Des Browne: I could not have put it better myself. I was hoping to, of course, but I could not have. I want to pose some questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I shall take one more intervention at an appropriate point.
	About 12 years ago, the local council, East Ayrshire council, Scottish Enterprise and the workers at Kilmarnock, supported by Donald Dewar and Brian Wilson, who were then in the Scotland Office, succeeded in persuading Diageo that that combination of efficiency, loyalty and profitability, embedded in a credible heritage and provenance, which is in the bottle, was a winning combination. Then, Diageo decided not only to continue to bottle whisky in Kilmarnock but to invest in the plant. Then, politicians intervened, and as a consequence Diageo and its Johnnie Walker plant in Kilmarnock have enjoyed a decade of improving markets and greater profitability. It is possible for politicians to make a positive contribution, and that is an example.
	Little, if anything, has changed since then, and the current proposal has nothing to do with the recession and everything to do with Diageo positioning itself in the global market for the next decade or so, as it is entitled to do. The difference this time is that the company's marketing gurus and desire for more shareholder value have convinced its executives that they can take the risk of breaking the link between the world's best-known Scotch whisky and its history. Furthermore, they must have been prepared to contemplate the disastrous social effects that the decision would have on the community that I represent, which has so loyally served the company for about 200 years, and they must have considered that a price worth paying. I do not believe that it is.
	Making the case for the company to think again is my job as a politician; it would be a dereliction of my duty not to do now what I did 12 years ago. Thankfully, we are dealing with what in Diageo's own words is a proposal. Its chief executive officer told me to my face that he would listen to an alternative. He has repeated that, both to the First Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotlandand, no doubt, to the Scottish Affairs Committee. We intend to take him at his word.
	I am not in the business of peddling false hopes and I realise how difficult this will be, but I am determined that all of us involved in this side of the argument will work together to produce an alternative that is at least as attractive as the proposal that is on the table at present. Scottish Enterprise has accepted the mandate to conduct the assessment of the underlying financial and business plan to enable us to come up with that alternative. The First Minister of Scotland has cast himself in the role of principal interlocutor with Diageo. Yesterday in a meeting in Edinburgh, local politicians and I made it perfectly clear to John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, and his officials and the senior management of Scottish Enterprise, that time is of the essence.
	Diageo's 90-day consultation clock is ticking, and the unions are already embroiled in consultations. If those consultations are not to become simply an opportunity for the company to justify its proposal, the shape of the alternative must begin to emerge sooner rather than later. When the First Minister meets the chief executive officer of Diageo next week, this story must move on. The campaign is bringing the community that I represent together in a spectacular fashion, but behind closed doors the uncertainty is destroying its confidence in its future. That cannot be allowed to go on.
	My constituents are very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister's Government for the support expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House at Prime Minister's questions last week. However, on my constituents' behalf I have some messages for the Government and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. First, the UK Government must stand ready to support, in any way that they can while respecting devolved responsibilities, any alternative proposal that emerges. I repeat that what has happened is not a consequence of recession and the decision is not driven by duty rates on spirits; consequently, the levers that the UK Government hold will be limited. However, as the counter-proposal emerges, and if we need to come for support, my constituents need to know that it will be there.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister is a fellow Scot and a former adviser to the late Donald Dewar, and he has a long history of appreciation of Scots values and heritage. I do not have to explain to him just how important these historical links are to Scotland's most famous export. Does he share my concern about the facility with which whisky executives now seem to be able to trot out the justifications for not only breaking the link but for moving even more than 20 per cent. of whisky bottling offshore?

Patrick McFadden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) on securing this debate. I have spoken to him about this issue several times in recent weeks, and I know how much it means to him and to his constituents. He is of course deeply concerned about the jobs of the Diageo workers in his constituency and the effect that the loss of those jobs will have not only on the families involved but on the wider community in Kilmarnock and the rest of Ayrshire.
	The Scotch whisky industry is hugely important to the UK economy. Figures published last month by the Scotch Whisky Association put the value of annual whisky shipments at more than 3 billion, earning 97 a second for the UK last year. Overall, the equivalent of more than 1 billion bottles of Scotch whisky were shipped all over the worldto north and central America, Australia, Europe and Asia. Whisky also means jobs. About three quarters of the UK's distilled alcoholic drinks enterprises are located in Scotland, with an estimated 41,000 people employed just in making, distilling and bottling whisky.
	Diageo is a major player in all this. It owns 29 whisky distilleries in Scotland, and houses all its maturing Scotch whisky in Scottish warehouses. Twenty-eight per cent. of its net sales are from Scotch whisky; that is a very large figure when one considers that it has sales of about 8 billion. Diageo directly employs 4,500 people across 50 sites. The Government, through UK Trade and Investment, have strongly supported the Scotch whisky industry, as my right hon. Friend said, and we have worked with Diageo in developing export markets. We very much appreciate the importance of that company and of the industry in general.
	Diageo's proposal is twofold. The first part is to close the packaging plant in Kilmarnockone of three in Scotlandalong with the cooperage in Port Dundas that was mentioned. The second part is to make a new investment of some 100 million, creating 400 new jobs elsewhere in Scotland. I understand that, as my right hon. Friend said, this has been greeted in Kilmarnock, where the greatest number of jobs will go, with deep disappointment and dismay.
	My right hon. Friend outlined the history; if someone knows the history, it means something to them. Kilmarnock is known as the home of Johnnie Walker whisky. Place has a huge role to play in whisky brands. As he said, when people buy whisky, they are not just buying a drinkthey are buying into a story about place, heritage and tradition. That is one of the major reasons for whisky's success. This particular whisky has been blended in Kilmarnock for almost two centuries, ever since Johnnie Walker himself blended it and sold it in Kilmarnock high street back in 1819. In fact, one of the earliest incarnations of the whisky was called Walker's Kilmarnock. Since then, generations of Kilmarnock families, including Johnnie Walker's descendents, Alexander Walker and Alexander Walker II, have added to the story of the whisky, whether through the iconic square bottle introduced in 1870 or the distinctive label applied, I understand, at the precise angle of 24.
	The association of the brand with real people and real places helps make Johnnie Walker such a distinctive and successful whisky. In fact its influence goes beyond the pleasure of drinking, as it has a wider cultural influence. I could name Leonard Cohen, Van Morrison, The Band, The Streets and ZZ Top as just some of the artists to have featured Johnnie Walker in their lyrics. Films such as The Dirty Dozen and great television programmes such as The West Wing contain references to Johnnie Walker. Indeed, there is even a Japanese novelist, Haruki Murakami, who went so far as to create a character called Johnnie Walker.
	Johnnie Walker is a whisky renowned throughout the world, with a far-reaching cultural influence. Perhaps that is one reason why there are yearly sales of more than 120 million bottles. Such is the product's worth that owning one bottle of a particular Johnnie Walker blue label of which I understand there are only 200 in existence would set one back an estimated $30,000.
	The affinity between the town and the brand helps explain why the proposal to close the plant in Kilmarnock has aroused such passionate and vocal opinion in the local community. As my right hon. Friend said, there is a 90-day consultation on the plans, and Diageo has given guarantees that there will be no compulsory job losses in the next 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has met the Diageo chief executive, to whom I spoke briefly about the matter today.
	Campaigners in Scotland have urged Diageo to consider seriously any alternative options that the workers and Scottish Enterprise can come up with, including the possibility of relocating to different sites in Kilmarnock and Glasgow if suitable proposals emerge. The business of devising alternative solutions involves the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and many others. They are working on putting together an alternative proposal for the company. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, a meeting yesterday was convened by the Scottish Government's Finance Minister, John Swinney.
	For our part, we believe that the work that the Scottish Government and their agencies are taking forward is crucial. I hope and believe that the company is genuine about consultation and open-minded about possibilities. The UK Government will continue to work with the company and my right hon. Friend, and to engage with the work force about the best way forward on this crucial issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.